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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please update Cross Reference to Related Applications with latest status of the application, such as co-pending application 18/174,212 is now issued with US Patent No. 12,088,334.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28, 30-35 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klicpera US 9,494,480 (Klicpera) in view of Eyring et al. US 9,684,312 (Eyring).
Regarding claim 21, Klicpera teaches a system (see Fig.3)comprising: one or more processors (CPU 84 in Fig.3); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to (note col.23, lines 25-42): receive first resource consumption information based on first data collected at a first resource consumption sensor associated with a first location (monitor water usage or consumption, note col.28, lines 46-66, first sensors located in a separate locations, one of 120A, 120B, 121, 123 in Fig.6; also note water quality sensors, col.35, lines 59-67); receive second resource consumption information based on second data collected at a second resource consumption sensor associated with a second location (monitor water usage or consumption, note col.28, lines 46-66 from second sensors located in a separate locations, the other of 120A, 120B, 121, 123 in Fig.6 also note water quality sensors, col.35, lines 59-67);
and present, on a display, a graphical user interface (GUI) (80 in Fig.3) comprising: a first graphical representation of the first resource consumption information (see Fig.8 showing water usage), the first graphical representation comprising an x-axis representing time and a y-axis representing an amount of resource consumption (x axis representing time of hours 308, 310, days 324, and months Jan thru Dec); and an annotation indicating a suspected event associated with the displayed data (344 in Fig.8, note col.41, lines 21-34; also note col.28, lines 53-66 display warning of no flow condition or slow flow condition). Klicpera further teaches displaying all of the day, week and month parameters of period of time in Fig.8, and also teaches displaying both the first data and second data (water usage 302 in Fig.8; Sensor 1, Sensor 2, Sensor X data of water quality 350 in Fig.8). However, Klicpera does not explicitly teach a first interface element for toggling between displaying the first data associated with a period of time comprising at least two of a day, a week, or a month; a second interface element for toggling between displaying, as displayed data, the first data and the second data.
Eyring teach a first interface element for toggling between displaying the first data associated with a period of time comprising at least two of a day, a week, or a month (see Figs.9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, 11A and 11B toggling between different period of time by YTD, MTD, Today, note col.20, line 47- col.21, line 22).
Eyring further teaches a second interface element for toggling between displaying, as displayed data, the first data and the second data (note col.30, lines 8-33, “… a first estimated energy usage data over a first selected time period of interest and a second estimated energy usage data over a second selected time period of interest… [t]he user 110 may toggle through the information displayed on the bottom of the screen by pressing the left and right arrow keys 1877a-b on the bottom of the display…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Eyring into the display of Klicpera of adding the function of toggling of desired info and data, which would add overall flexibility to the system that may add an improvement for monitoring resource consumption, as taught by Eyring, note col.1, lines 33-35.
Regarding claim 22, Klicpera further teaches wherein the first resource consumption information is indicative a use of a water resource with respect to time (monitor water usage or consumption, note col.28, lines 46-66, first sensors located in a separate locations, one of 120A, 120B, 121, 123 in Fig.6, hours 308, 310, days 324, and months Jan thru Dec).
Regarding claim 23, Klicpera further teaches wherein the first resource consumption information represents a determination of the suspected event (344 in Fig.8, note col.41, lines 21-34; also note col.28, lines 53-66 display warning of no flow condition or slow flow condition).
Regarding claim 24, Klicpera further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to transmit an alert comprising at least one of an email or an audio element to a computing device (alert generated when leakage condition is indicated, note col.38, lines 58-67; provide audio signals of alarming conditions, note col.41, lines 20-34).
Regarding claim 25, Klicpera further teaches wherein the alert includes instructions indicative of identifying and correcting the suspected event (limit the flow of water, or turn the water completely off based on monitoring water usage, note col.41, lines 20-34).
Regarding claim 26, Klicpera further teaches wherein the first resource consumption sensor comprises a water sensor coupled to a first device that communicates with a second device (monitor water usage or consumption, note col.28, lines 46-66, first sensors located in a separate locations, one of 120A, 120B, 121, 123 in Fig.6 communicates with a second device, such as 56 in Fig.1).
Regarding claim 28, Klicpera further teaches temperature sensor (93 in Fig.3) and display of temperature data in display (see Fig.7), however, Klicpera does not explicitly teach wherein the GUI further comprises a second graphical representation indicative of temperature data with respect to the x-axis.
Eyring teaches wherein the GUI further comprises a second graphical representation indicative of temperature data with respect to the x-axis (see Fig.12 illustrating temperature data on the right side of the USAGE DETAIL chart along with daily weather, 1218, 1222 in Fig.12, wherein one skilled in the art would also recognize that weather may be associated with temperature). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the temperature on the right side of the display may be placed on the x-axis associated with the daily weather at the location 1218 in Fig.12 for the purpose of ease, and personal preference as all relevant data and information are presented. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Eyring in the display of Klicpera of displaying temperature on the same display with the water consumption in order to recognize any relationship a user may find between temperature and water consumption.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 21.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 22.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 23.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 24.
Regarding claim 34, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 25.
Regarding claim 35, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 26.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 21. Klicpera further teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions executable by one or more processors (note col.23, lines 25-41).
Regarding claim 39, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 22.
Regarding claim 40, Klicpera further teaches wherein the first location is a different physical structure than the second location (see Fig.6 wherein the sensors are located at different physical structure).
Claim(s) 27 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klicpera US 9,494,480 (Klicpera) in view of Eyring et al. US 9,684,312 (Eyring) and Zhu et al. US 2016/0033946 (Zhu).
Regarding claim 27, Klicpera in view of Eyring teaches all as applied to claim 21, however, do not explicitly teach wherein the GUI further comprises a humidity indicator associated with the first resource consumption information. Zhu teaches GUI further comprises a humidity indicator associated with the first resource consumption information (humidity associated with water consumption, note [0040]). Zhu further teaches wherein all desirable metrics are shown in a single statistic, including water consumption, energy consumption and humidity (note [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhu in the system of Eyring of further displaying humidity for the purpose of displaying all desirable metrics in a single statistic (note [0040]).
Regarding claim 36, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 27.
Claim(s) 29 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klicpera US 9,494,480 (Klicpera) in view of Eyring et al. US 9,684,312 (Eyring) and Schackmuth et al. US 2013/0282624 (Schackmuth).
Regarding claim 29, Klicpera in view of Eyring teaches all as applied to claim 21, however, do not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to receive a user input indicating whether a mechanical failure associated with the suspected event is resolved. Schackmuth teaches a system to receive a user input indicating whether a mechanical failure associated with the suspected event is resolved (note paragraph 0102 wherein when problems has or has not been resolved with all services including electric, gas and water, note [0074, 0076] wherein it may include mechanical failures from devices 30 in Fig.2, the dashboard 22 can be configured also through user input to update the proper status). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Schackmuth into the system of Klicpera for the purpose of having any updated status properly reflected on the display.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM K. AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-3044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5PM.
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, James Kramer can be reached at 571-272-6783. 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.
/SAM K AHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights