DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 06/01/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1-20 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-8 and 16-19 fall within category of process; each of claim 9-15 and 20 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding Claims 1-8
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of determining that a condition indicative of an earthquake has been satisfied.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method comprising:
generating, by a utility metering device, first metrology data indicative of a value of a ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device;
generating, by the utility metering device, second metrology data indicative of a direction of the ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device;
determining, by the utility metering device based on the first metrology data, that a condition indicative of an earthquake has been satisfied; and
in response to determining that the condition indicative of the earthquake has been satisfied, transmitting, by the utility metering device, a message that includes the first metrology data and the second metrology data to a computing device.
The italicized limitations above represent mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “generating[..]a value of a ground acceleration [..]; Generating [..] indicative of a direction of the ground acceleration [..]; Determining [..] a condition indicative of an earthquake has been satisfied; ” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “generating, by a utility metering device, first metrology data indicative of a value of a ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device; generating, by the utility metering device, second metrology data indicative of a direction of the ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device in response to determining that the condition indicative of the earthquake has been satisfied, transmitting, by the utility metering device, a message that includes the first metrology data and the second metrology data to a computing device” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “by the utility metering device ” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component with generic sensor as a tool to perform (data gathering and process data) the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the two “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of Claim “ utility metering device”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims2-8 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2 and 6, : a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations of Claims 4-5 and 8: to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
For example, the limitations of Claims 3 and 7: generic devices, which are well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d))
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 contains language similar to claims 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 9is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Regarding Claims 10-15
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea of determining that a condition indicative of an earthquake has been satisfied.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
10. A utility metering device comprising:
an accelerometer configured to sense a ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device;
a magnetometer configured to sense a strength of a magnetic field proximate the utility metering device;
one or more processors; and
a memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
generate first metrology data based on the ground acceleration sensed by the accelerometer;
generate second metrology data based on a magnetic field strength sensed by the magnetometer;
determine that a condition indicative of an earthquake has been satisfied based on the ground acceleration sensed by the accelerometer; and
in response to determining that the condition indicative of the earthquake has been satisfied, transmit a message that indicates that an earthquake has occurred to a server..
The italicized limitations above represent mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations generate first metrology data [..]; generate second metrology data[..]; determine that a condition indicative of an earthquake has been satisfied [..]” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 10 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “in response to determining that the condition indicative of the earthquake has been satisfied, transmit a message that indicates that an earthquake has occurred to a server” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “A utility metering device comprising: an accelerometer configured to sense a ground acceleration proximate the detection device; a magnetometer configured to sense a strength of a magnetic field proximate the detection device; one or more processors; and a memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” to be performed, at least in-part, a generic utility metering device for earthquake determination by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component with generic sensor as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the two “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a detection of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims10 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of Claim “ processor, memory, server, accelerometer, a magnetometer, utility metering ”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 11-16
Dependent claims 11-16 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims11-16 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 11-15: to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Regarding Claims 16-19
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea of determining a characteristic of an earthquake.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
16. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first message that includes metrology data associated with ground acceleration at a first location from a first utility metering device, , wherein the first metrology data is generated by the first utility metering device;
receiving, by the computing device, a second message that includes metrology data associated with ground acceleration at a second location from a second utility metering device, wherein the first metrology data is generated by the second utility metering device ; and
determining, based at least on the ground acceleration at the first location and the ground acceleration at the second location, a characteristic of an earthquake..
The italicized limitations above represent mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “determining[..] a characteristic of an earthquake” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 16 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “receiving, by a computing device, a first message that includes metrology data associated with ground acceleration at a first location from a first utility metering device, , wherein the first metrology data is generated by the first utility metering device; receiving, by the computing device, a second message that includes metrology data associated with ground acceleration at a second location from a second utility metering device, wherein the first metrology data is generated by the second utility metering device” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and /or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “by a computing device, utility metering device” to be performed, at least in-part, a generic utility metering device for earthquake determination by use of a computer running software. This element amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or mere use of a generic computer component with generic sensor as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the two “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a detection of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims16 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of Claim “ by a computing device, first utility metering device, second utility metering device ”, generic device, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 17-19
Dependent claims 11-16 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims11-16 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 17-18: to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For example, the limitations of Claim 9:abstract idea (mental steps).
Regarding Claim 20
Claim 20 contains language similar to claims 16 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
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) 1-10 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall et al. (US 20210356612) in view of Brennan et al. (US 2016/0351028).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9. Kendall teaches a method comprising(abstract):
generating, by a utility metering device(100: fig. 1), first metrology data indicative of a value of a ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device([0030]);
generating, by the utility metering device, second metrology data indicative of a direction of the ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device([0065]);
determining, by the utility metering device based on the first metrology data, that a condition indicative of an earthquake has been satisfied([0030], [0033]); and
in response to determining that the condition indicative of the earthquake has been satisfied, transmitting, by the utility metering device, a message that includes the first metrology data and the second metrology data to a computing device (140: fig. 1; The earthquake detection devices can send location information and acceleration measurements collected at the location to, for example, a cloud-based server for further processing:[0011], the orientation data determined during the initial self-orientation, determines the direction(s) of acceleration events at the location of the earthquake detection device 100 [0033]; the detection device 100 comprises one or more additional positional sensors. The positional sensors may include gyroscopes, magnetometers, and the like. The one or more additional positional sensors may be used in the determination of the orientation of the detection device 100 and/or the determination of whether an earthquake is occurring: [0065]).
Regarding Claim 2. Kendall teaches determining that the condition indicative of the earthquake has been satisfied comprises at least one of:
determining that the value of the ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device exceeds a threshold([0050]);
determining that a frequency of the ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device is within a certain frequency range([0034]); or
determining that the value of the ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device has exceeded the threshold for a particular amount of time([0034]).
Regarding Claim 3. Kendall further teaches the computing device is a second utility metering device(210: fig. 2; [0070]-[0071]).
Regarding Claim 4. Kendall further teaches the first metrology data comprises:
generating, by an accelerometer, a first measurement indicative of a first value of the ground acceleration along a first axis relative to the utility metering device (x : [0031]);
generating, by the accelerometer, a second measurement indicative of a second value of the ground acceleration along a second axis relative to the utility metering device(y: [0031]); and
generating, by the accelerometer, a third measurement indicative of a third value of the ground acceleration along a third axis relative to the utility metering device(z: [0031]).
Regarding Claim 5. Kendall further teaches generating the second metrology data includes:
generating, by a sensor, a measurement indicative of a strength of a magnetic field proximate the utility metering device(magnetometer : [0065]; main operation principal of magnetometer well known in the art , see supported documents at conclusion section );
determining, by the utility metering device based on the strength of the magnetic field proximate the utility metering device, a direction in which the utility metering device is facing(orientation: [0065]); and
determining, by the utility metering device based on the direction in which the utility metering device is facing, the direction of the ground acceleration relative to the utility metering device(determination of the orientation of the detection device: [0065]).
Regarding Claim 6. Kendall further teaches determining the direction of the ground acceleration relative to the utility metering device comprises:
determining a first value of the ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device in a first direction relative to the utility metering device(x: [0031], [0037]; collecting acceleration measurements generated by the plurality of three-component accelerometers of an individual earthquake detection device during an earthquake to generate a frequency response curve. When the frequency response curve is generated by an earthquake, it is then compared to a previously-generated frequency response curve to determine if the frequency response of the structure in which the earthquake detection device is installed changed as a result of the earthquake: [0071]);
determining a second value of the ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device in a second direction relative to the utility metering device(y: [0031], [0037]; collecting acceleration measurements generated by the plurality of three-component accelerometers of an individual earthquake detection device during an earthquake to generate a frequency response curve. When the frequency response curve is generated by an earthquake, it is then compared to a previously-generated frequency response curve to determine if the frequency response of the structure in which the earthquake detection device is installed changed as a result of the earthquake: [0071]); and
determining a third value of the ground acceleration proximate the utility metering device in a third direction relative to the utility metering device(z: [0031], [0037];
collecting acceleration measurements generated by the plurality of three-component accelerometers of an individual earthquake detection device during an earthquake to generate a frequency response curve. When the frequency response curve is generated by an earthquake, it is then compared to a previously-generated frequency response curve to determine if the frequency response of the structure in which the earthquake detection device is installed changed as a result of the earthquake:[0071]).
Regarding Claim 7. Kendall further teaches the sensor is a three-axis accelerometer([0031]).
Regarding Claim 8. Kendall further teaches the message includes information that identifies a location of the utility metering device(140: fig. 1; [0011],[0031], [0053], [0065]).
Regarding claims 1-8: Kendall further teaches detection device is associated with water system ([0052]).
Kendall silent about utility meter associated with detection device
However, Brennan teaches utility meter associated with detection device, i.e. water meter contains a positioning detector, an accelerometer and a digital compass([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Kendall, utility meter associated with detection device, as taught by Brennan(Claims 1-8), so as to detect non-theft related events such as an earthquake, or vibration due to placement in a region near a major highway..
Regarding Claim 10. Kendall teaches a detection device comprising(100: fig. 1; 210: fig. 2):
an accelerometer configured to sense a ground acceleration proximate the detection device([0030]);
a magnetometer configured to sense a strength of a magnetic field proximate the detection device(magnetometer : [0065]; main operation principal of magnetometer well known in the art , see supported documents at conclusion section );
one or more processors(120: fig. 1); and
a memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to(120: fig. 1):
generate first metrology data based on the ground acceleration sensed by the accelerometer([0030]);
generate second metrology data based on a magnetic field strength sensed by the magnetometer (magnetometer : [0065]; main operation principal of magnetometer well known in the art , see supported documents a conclusion section );
determine that a condition indicative of an earthquake has been satisfied based on the ground acceleration sensed by the accelerometer([0030], [0033]); and
in response to determining that the condition indicative of the earthquake has been satisfied, transmit a message that indicates that an earthquake has occurred to a server (140: fig. 1; [0011],[0031], [0053], [0065]).
Kendall further teaches detection device is associated with water system ([0052]).
Kendall silent about utility meter associated with detection device
However, Brennan teaches utility meter associated with detection device, i.e. water meter contains a positioning detector, an accelerometer and a digital compass([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Kendall, utility meter associated with detection device, as taught by Brennan, so as to detect non-theft related events such as an earthquake, or vibration due to placement in a region near a major highway..
Regarding Claim 11. Kendall silent about the utility utility metering device further comprises utility metering circuitry configured to monitor consumption of a utility commodity that includes at least one of electricity, gas, heat, or water.
However, Brennan teaches the utility utility metering device further comprises utility metering circuitry configured to monitor consumption of a utility commodity that includes at least one of electricity, gas, heat, or water (([0017])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Kendall, the utility utility metering device further comprises utility metering circuitry configured to monitor consumption of a utility commodity that includes at least one of electricity, gas, heat, or water, as taught by Brennan, so as to build a consumed profile of water consumed over said time period..
Regarding Claim 13. Kendall further teaches the message includes at least one of the first metrology data, the second metrology data, or information that identifies a location at which the detection device is installed(140: fig. 1; [0011],[0031], [0053], [0065]).
Kendall silent about utility meter associated with detection device
However, Brennan teaches utility meter associated with detection device, i.e. water meter contains a positioning detector, an accelerometer and a digital compass([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Kendall, utility meter associated with detection device, as taught by Brennan, so as to detect non-theft related events such as an earthquake, or vibration due to placement in a region near a major highway..
Regarding Claim 14. Kendall further teaches the first metrology data includes at least one of an amplitude of the ground acceleration proximate the detection device or a waveform of the ground acceleration proximate the detection device([0031], [0037], [0071]).
Kendall silent about utility meter associated with detection device
However, Brennan teaches utility meter associated with detection device, i.e. water meter contains a positioning detector, an accelerometer and a digital compass([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Kendall, utility meter associated with detection device, as taught by Brennan, so as to detect non-theft related events such as an earthquake, or vibration due to placement in a region near a major highway..
Regarding Claim 15. Kendall further teaches the second metrology data includes a direction in which the ground acceleration is occurring relative to the detection device([0065]).
Kendall silent about utility meter associated with detection device
However, Brennan teaches utility meter associated with detection device, i.e. water meter contains a positioning detector, an accelerometer and a digital compass([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Kendall, utility meter associated with detection device, as taught by Brennan, so as to detect non-theft related events such as an earthquake, or vibration due to placement in a region near a major highway..
Regarding Claims 16 and 20. Kendall teaches a method comprising([0070]-[0071]):
receiving, by a computing device, a first message that includes first metrology data associated with ground acceleration at a first location from a first detection device, wherein the first metrology data is generated by the first detection device(210: fig. 2; [0070]-[0071] );
receiving, by the computing device, a second message that includes second metrology data associated with ground acceleration at a second location from a second detection device, wherein the first metrology data is generated by the second detection device(210: fig. 2; [0070]-[0071] ); and
determining, based at least on the ground acceleration at the first location and the ground acceleration at the second location, a characteristic of an earthquake([0070]-[0071] ).
Kendall silent about utility meters associated with detection devices.
However, Brennan teaches utility meters associated with detection devices, i.e. water meter contains a positioning detector, an accelerometer and a digital compass([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Kendall, utility meter associated with detection device, as taught by Brennan, so as to detect non-theft related events such as an earthquake, or vibration due to placement in a region near a major highway..
Regarding Claim 17. Kendall further teaches determining the characteristic of the earthquake includes determining at least one of a magnitude or an intensity of the earthquake([0004], [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 18. Kendall further teaches determining the characteristic of the earthquake includes determining at least one of a location that has been subjected to a high intensity during the earthquake or a direction associated with ground acceleration caused by the earthquake([0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 19. Kendall further teaches determining the characteristic of the earthquake includes([0070]-[0071] ):
determining that the ground acceleration at the first location and the ground acceleration at the second location are similar to ground acceleration data associated with a second earthquake that previously occurred([0070]-[0072] ); and
determining that a magnitude of the earthquake is approximately equal to the magnitude of the second earthquake that previously occurred([0070]-[0072] ).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall et al. (US 20210356612) in view of Brennan et al. (US 2016/0351028), further in view of Vadwa et al. (US 2022/0198911).
Regarding Claim 12. The modified Kendall silent the utility metering device is a controller included in a streetlight.
However, Vadwa teaches the utility metering device is a controller included in a streetlight([0002], [0022]-[0023], [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of modified Kendall, the utility metering device is a controller included in a streetlight, as taught by Vadwa, so as to the system can more effectively use information from an existing infrastructure to determine alternative outcomes or events.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, 10 and 16, The applicant did not agree with it, see, pages 7-13.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because limitations of claim 1,10 and 16 represent a combination of mental step (i.e., fundamental economic practice, a sales activity, managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper) and/ or a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the limitations, specifically italicized limitations above of claim1,10 and 16 above fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic metering device with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, current claim invention is not like Ex Parte Desjardins et al (improvements to the ML/AI algorithm described or discussed in the specification). current 101 rejection based on 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. outputting the result from the generic computer component as tool are mere data gathering and output recited data gathering, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect 102 rejection, specially claims 1, 10 and 16 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection made over amended limitation based on newly cited prior art, see the updated rejection above.
.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Sheeks et al. (US 2021/0141108) disclose Earthquake detector is a solid-state device that detects the motion of a building or structure
b) Schmitt et al. (US 10,083,551) disclose A magnetometer may be used to measure the strength and direction of the magnetic field relative to the mobile device. The sensors 218 previously described are exemplary, and the mobile device 216 may include any other sensors used for crash detection.
c) Allresd et al. (US 2018/0106323) disclose The three axis magnetometer is comprised of at least three orthogonal vector magnetometers measuring magnetic field components including magnetic field strength, inclination and declination
d) Snyder et al. (US 9,916,698) disclose A magnetometer may be used to measure the strength and direction of the magnetic field relative to the mobile device. The sensors 218 previously described are exemplary, and the mobile device 216 may include any other sensors used for crash detection.
e) Rodolico et al. (US 2018/0047265) disclose Non-limited examples of security sensors include video cameras, microphones, ambient light sensors, passive infrared sensors, humidity sensors, temperature sensors, carbon dioxide sensors, carbon monoxide sensors, seismic sensors, pressure sensors, seismometers, magnetometers, accelerometers, mercury switches, gyroscopes, pressure sensitive door mats, proximity sensors, or the like. A system of sensors including 1) an accelerometer, 2) a magnetometer, and 3) a gyroscope, combined with a zero crossing error correction algorithm, as well as a method of using those sensors with the zero crossing error correction algorithm, for orientation motion tracking applications, including sports and athletics training, animation for motion picture and computer gaming industry, 3D joysticks, and peripherals for computer gaming industry, as well as medical and health diagnosis and monitoring systems.
f) Baker et al. (US 2015/0149104) .
g) Garrett et al. (US 2023/0298446).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 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 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights