CTNF 18/675,753 CTNF 83669 DETAILED ACTION NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 July 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein. CLAIM STATUS Claims 1-17 were originally filed. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined herein. INITIAL REMARKS Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action . The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner. CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Following the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (89 FR 58128 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2024 GUIDANCE), the claim(s) appear to fall into one of the enumerated statutory categories and recites at least one judicial exception, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below. STEP 2A, PRONG I: Step 2A, prong I, of the 2024 GUIDANCE , first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). Re claim 1 , Applicant recites the following limitations: identifying water nodes in the water cycle based on water flow; determining a difference in water balance for each water node; identifying a leak at a particular water node among the water nodes based on the difference in water balance at the particular water node being higher than a predetermined threshold value; These steps are directed to a mental process and/or mathematical concept, such as determining a mathematical relationship or performing a mathematical calculation. The 2024 GUIDANCE expressly recognizes such mental processes and mathematical relationships as constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Accordingly, these limitations can reasonably be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea. STEP 2A, PRONG II: Step 2A, prong II, of the 2024 GUIDANCE , next analyzes whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the 2024 GUIDANCE identifies various considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Re claim 1 , in addition to reciting the above-noted abstract idea(s), the judicial exception recited in the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited, namely “A computer-implemented method for detecting water leak in a facility, comprising: receiving real-time water cycle data in the facility, wherein the data includes water flow of the water cycle; and rendering a visualization comprising a representation of the leak at the particular water node on a display device”, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity. Examples of such activity are data gathering, data selection, and insignificant applications (i.e., a general output). Here, the “receiving” step merely represents data gathering while the “rendering” step merely represents an insignificant application, merely outputting the results of the judicial exception. Furthermore, nothing in the claim reasonably indicates that anything other than a generic computer (i.e., “computer-implemented”) needs to be used to carry out the abstract idea. STEP 2B: Step 2B of the 2024 GUIDANCE , next analyzes whether the claimed invention adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. Re claim 1, the additional limitation(s) recited above only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological field. Furthermore, these additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they again merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., receiving and outputting data) while only generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological field (i.e., “computer-implemented” water leak detection). Further still, this/these additional limitation(s) does/do not, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for at least these reasons. Re claims 2-6, these claims do not appear to cure the deficiencies noted above with regard to claim 1, from which they depend, as they merely add further mathematical processing steps, mental processes, and/or other extra-solution activity. Accordingly, they are rejected under the same or substantially similar analysis, as outlined above. Re claims 7-17, Applicant recites language similar to claims 1-6, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 7-17 are also rejected under 35 USC § 101 as failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter. CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5, 7, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Tao et al., US20200319057 (hereinafter “TAO”) . Re claim 1, TAO discloses a computer-implemented method for detecting water leak in a facility [ABSTRACT], comprising: receiving real-time water cycle data in the facility, wherein the data includes water flow of the water cycle [0083]; identifying water nodes in the water cycle based on water flow [0088-0089]; determining a difference in water balance for each water node [0077]; identifying a leak at a particular water node among the water nodes based on the difference in water balance at the particular water node being higher than a predetermined threshold value [0070]; and rendering a visualization comprising a representation of the leak at the particular water node on a display device [Fig.2 and associated text] Re claim 2, TAO discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. TAO further discloses: recommending one or more repair actions for repairing the leak [0094] Re claim 3, TAO discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. TAO further discloses: estimating the water flow based on a water mass balance [0066] Re claim 4, TAO discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. TAO further discloses: estimating the water flow based on a pump, wherein the water flow is the number of hours that the pump is operated X an average pumping rate [0054-0066] Re claim 5, TAO discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. TAO further discloses: wherein an amount of the leak at the particular water node is the same as the difference in water balance of the particular water node [0077] Re claims 7/13, Applicant claims features of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 7/13 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1. Re claim 10, TAO discloses the apparatus of claim 7, as shown above. TAO further discloses: wherein the water mass imbalance is a difference between make-up water and estimated water consumption of the water consumption device [0069] Re claim 11, TAO discloses the apparatus of claim 10, as shown above. TAO further discloses: wherein the estimated water consumption comprises evaporated water, blowdown water, and drift water [0069] CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 8-9, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TAO in view of Koyama et al., WO2025069458A1 (hereinafter “KOYAMA”) . Re claim 6, TAO discloses the method of claim 2, as shown above. TAO fails to explicitly disclose wherein recommending the one or more repair actions further comprises: determining a Repair Priority Index (RPI) of each recommended repair action, wherein the RPI is based on estimated water savings, estimated repair costs, and estimated time to complete a respective recommended repair action; and ranking the one or more recommended repair actions based on an RPI of the respective recommended repair action However, KOYAMA, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a water leakage detection system that determines a repair priority index based on at least man-hours and leakage flow rate and prioritizes repairs based on the index [p.12] Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the water leakage detection system of TAO to include the repair prioritization feature of KOYAMA. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the subjectivity and investigation man-hours involved in traditional water leakage detection (KOYAMA [p.12]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, KOYAMA merely teaches that it is well-known to use a formulated priority index for water leakage repairs, as is done in a variety of other industries. Since both TAO and KOYAMA disclose similar water leak detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Re claim 8, TAO discloses the method of claim 7, as shown above. TAO further discloses recommending one or more repair actions to reduce the water loss [0094] TAO fails to explicitly disclose receiving a visual inspection result indicating a sign of scaling, corrosion, or leak in the water cycle of the water consumption device; and recommending one or more repair actions to reduce the water loss However, KOYAMA, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a water leakage detection system that receives a visual inspection result indicating a sign of scaling, corrosion, or leak in a water cycle of a water consumption device [pp.4/8] and recommends one or more repair actions to reduce the water loss [p.12] Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the water leakage detection system of TAO to include the visual inspection features of KOYAMA. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the subjectivity and investigation man-hours involved in traditional water leakage detection (KOYAMA [p.12]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, KOYAMA merely teaches that it is well-known to receive a visual inspection result in a water leak detection system. Since both TAO and KOYAMA disclose similar water leak detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Re claim 9, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6. Re claim 12, TAO discloses the apparatus of claim 10, as shown above. TAO fails to explicitly disclose wherein the water consumption device is a cooling system or a boiler system However, KOYAMA, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a water leakage detection system for a cooling system or a boiler system [p.3] Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the water leakage detection system of TAO to include the specific embodiments of KOYAMA. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the subjectivity and investigation man-hours involved in traditional water leakage detection (KOYAMA [p.12]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, KOYAMA merely teaches that it is well-known to apply a water leak detection system in a particular environment. Since both TAO and KOYAMA disclose similar water leak detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Re claims 14-15, Applicant recites claim features of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 8-9. Accordingly, claims 14-15 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 8-9. Re claim 16, TAO/KOYAMA renders obvious the system of claim 14, as shown above. TAO further discloses wherein the one or more repair actions comprise one or more of: (i) adjusting operating parameters, (ii) fixing any malfunction in the water treatment system, (iii) adjusting chemical dosing, or (iv) repairing pin holes in the water treatment system [0094] 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TAO in view of Official Notice (hereinafter “ON”) . Re claim 17, TAO discloses the system of claim 13, as shown above. TAO fails to explicitly disclose wherein the water reject volume comprises backwash water volume, a reverse osmosis reject volume, and a demineralization reject volume However, the Examiner takes ON that, in the same or similar field of endeavor, the prior art teaches that the particular water leakage may be from backwash, a reverse osmosis system, or a demineralization issue. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the water leakage detection system of TAO to include the specific embodiments of what has been asserted by the Examiner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the subjectivity and investigation man-hours involved in traditional water leakage detection (KOYAMA [p.12]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known for a water leak may be sourced from a particular environment. Since both TAO and the Examiner’s assertion disclose features well known in water leak detection systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. RELEVANT PRIOR ART The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows: US20230193599A1, McConnell – leak detection system using flow rate sensors and smart valves US20210148782A1, Zheng et al. – system for providing online water balance analysis of a water supply network to localize leaks in a supply pipe network CONCLUSION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. 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. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair . Respectfully, /Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 6 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 7 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 8 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 9 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 10 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 11 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 12 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 13 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 14 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 15 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 16 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/675,753 Page 17 Art Unit: 2855
Prosecution Insights