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 § 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the preamble recites “a computer implemented method” in claim 1, and a computer program product comprising program code instructions in claim 11. A review of the specification at paragraph[0072]) teaches that the computer implemented method and program product could readily include executable code elements, which would constitute a signal, per se, and therefore not be eligible subject matter. The specification does not rule out the non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation
“the consumption”………..
”the detection”………….
”the immediately preceding pulse”………..
”the series”…………
”the association”……….
“the last pulse associated with the use”………..
”the computation”………..
”the classification” in lines 5,6,7,8,9,13, and 16, respectively;
“the cumulative volumes of water consumption” in claim 7 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
ART REJECTION:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leaders et al(USPat. 9,874,466 B2).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Leaders et al(Leaders) includes:
1) at least one home (300) is met by the individual home that the system is installed(see: Leaders, column 13, lines 12—20);
2) obtaining (310) a series of successive time pulses from a water consumption meter (110) placed on a water supply pipeline (111) supplying at least one home, each pulse representing the consumption of a predefined volume of water at a transmission time is met by the meter is met by the fluid flow meters(100) attached to pipes(10), and wherein a processor(202) estimates fluid velocity and flow rate(see: Leaders, column 8, lines 45-60);
3) the detection (320) of a use associated with a first pulse having a transmission time greater than or equal to the sum of the transmission time of the immediately preceding pulse in the series and of a predefined threshold is met by the plot which shows pulses and time of flight, which are indicative of flow rate, wherein, two received pulses separated by a delay corresponds to a difference in flow rate(see: column 8, lines 61 et seq; column 9 lines 1-19);
4) the association (330) successively with the use of the immediately subsequent pulses in the series, as long as the difference between the transmission time of the last pulse associated with the use, and the transmission time of the immediately subsequent pulse is below said predefined threshold is met by the processor(202) using techniques to estimate the flow rate or velocity of the fluid in the pipe(10), by estimating the fluid velocity based on the time it takes an ultrasonic signal or pulse(111) to propagate from one transducer(110) to the other transducer(110), and wherein changes in the flow rate cause a time delay by a corresponding amount(see: Leaders, column 8, lines 43-60); and wherein the determination of subsequent pulses being below a predefined threshold, is met by the comparing a representation of the reflected pulse to one or more predetermined templates, each of which represents a different fluid velocity such that a delay in the time difference determines flow rate fluctuations(see: Leaders, column 6, lines 28-44);
5) the computation (340) of a volume of water consumed during the use, said volume of water consumed during the use being equal to the number of pulses associated with the use multiplied by said predefined volume is met by the relationship between flow rate and time delay of arrival, being linear at the flow rate of interest, such that the rates determine gallons per minute, which is a measurement of volume of water consumed being equivalent to the number of pulses determined(see: Leaders, column 6, lines 28-44);
6) the classification (350) of the use into a type of use, according to the volume of water consumed during the use is met by the flow rates being fed to an analytics engine sus that a conservation score that corresponds to a user’s water usage is used for water usage rankings. Wherein the score corresponds to the detection of categories such as leaks, freezes, malfunctions, fraud, etc(see: Leaders, column 13, lines 32-47).
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) each type of use among a set of types of use is associated with a volume interval, where the volume intervals associated with the different types of use do not overlap would have been met by the analysis engine which determines data and compares usage based on a plurality of templates which determine precise usage based on velocities(see: column 10, lines 39-51);
2) classification consists in classifying the use into a type of use of said set associated with a volume interval comprising said volume of water consumed during the use is met by the templates determining a precise velocity estimate, which is a function of water consumed during use(see: column 10, lines 39-50).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) a further step of computing the cumulative volumes of water consumption associated with a plurality of types of uses, respectively, over a given period is met by the templates being a part of the consumption history, which would have inherently include a predetermined amount of time in a given period, in order to compare usage(see: Leaders, column 14, lines 54 et seq).
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) a step of presenting a synthetic graphical representation representing the cumulative volumes of water consumption associated with the plurality of types, respectively, of use over the given period, for a user living in the at least one home or an operator of the water distribution network to which said pipeline belongs is met by the consumption usage history being accessible and displayed to a user of the system(see: Leaders, column 14, lines 54 et seq).
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) the cumulative volumes are compared with cumulative volumes of reference consumption for the given period are met by the history including the templates that allow the usage to be compared to(see: Leaders, column 10, lines 39-50).
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) if the number of occurrences or the cumulative volume of consumption of a given type of use over a given period is greater than a second threshold, the automatic detection of an undesirable use would have been determined by the engine analysis determining consumption such as leaks and other forms of excessive consumption(see: Leaders, column 14, 21-31]).
-- With regards to claim 11,
1) A computer program product comprising program code instructions for executing the steps of the method according to claim 1 when said computer program is executed on a computer is met by the processor calibration program of the processing system(200)(see: Leaders, column 12, lines 4-27).
-- With regards to claim 12,
1) at least one home (100,200a, 200b) is met by the individual home that the system is installed(see: Leaders, column 13, lines 12—20);
2) a water consumption meter (110, 213a, 213b) placed on a water supply (111) supplying the at least one home, configured to transmit successive time pulses, each pulse representing the consumption of a predefined volume of water at a transmission time is met by the flow meter that clamps around pipe(10)(see: Leaders, column 5, lines 24-34);
2) at least one computing unit (211a, 221b) configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 is met by the processor(200)(see: Leaders, column 6, lines 45-53).
-- With regards to claim 13,
1) a single device (210a) comprising said water consumption meter (213a) and said at least one computing unit (211a) is met by the flow meter that clamps around pipe(10)(see: Leaders, column 5, lines 24-34).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leaders et al(Leaders).
-- With regards to claims 2-5, Leaders does not specifically teach:
1) said predefined threshold is comprised between 40 and 180 seconds would have been(claim 2);
2) said predefined threshold is comprised between 90 and 180 seconds(claim 3);
3) the predefined volume of water is comprised between 0.1 and 31(claim 4);
4) the predefined volume of water is equal to 11(claim 5).
Although Leaders does not specify the exact threshold, it would have constituted a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the threshold to between any amount of seconds as desired, wince one of ordinary skill would have readily been able to adjust the templates to monitor any parameters as desired, that would have been indicative of different types of usage. As well, it would have also constituted a matter of obvious design choice, to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specify the predefined volume of water to be any volume that would have defined a specific type of usage, as desired by one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights