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 § 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 1-20 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.
As to claim 1: Line 8, 10, and 11 of the claim recite in part “cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device” and the scope of the limitation “likely to occur in the device” is unclear. In particular, Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 43-45 uses the phrase “likely occurring” and “likely to occur” several times. It appears that Applicant uses these terms interchangeably but the examiner contends that the scope of these phrases are different; i.e. the phrase “likely occurring” is interpreted by the examiner as a physical process (e.g. cavitation) which is currently taking place but has not yet been positively ascribed to cavitation as being the mechanism responsible for the measured physical parameters being currently sensed by claimed device. Conversely, the term “likely to occur” is interpreted by the examiner as attempting to predict or perceive a future occurrence of said cavitation.
Because each of the above terms are utilized by Applicant interchangeably throughout the specification (with the claim reciting “occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device”), the scope of the claim is unclear. However, for the purpose of expedient examination, the examiner is interpreting the claim to refer solely to the examiner’s first described interpretation previously above; i.e. there is a physical process of cavitation actively occurring now in the present moment but which has not yet been definitively attributed to cavitation being the physical mechanism responsible for said process.
As to claims 11 and 19: Each of said claims are independent claims reciting features similar to claim 1 above and accordingly each suffers from a lack of clarity for reasons similar thereto but not repeated herein for brevity.
As to claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20: Each of said claims depends ultimately from one of claims 1, 11, or 19, and accordingly each also inherits the lack of clarity of each of claims 1, 11, or 19 for reasons indicated previously above but not repeated herein for brevity.
The examiner recommends amending the claims to remove instances of “likely to occur” so as to obviate the possibility of appearing to claim prediction of future events and/or responding to this action by affirming the examiner’s interpretation of the scope of said term such that it is limited to solely to refer to a physical process that is occurring, but which has not yet been positively attributed to cavitation at this time.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollingsworth US PG-PUB 2022/0260469 A1 (hereafter Hollingsworth) in view of Munk US PG-PUB 2019/0339162 A1 (hereafter Munk).
As to claim 1: Hollingsworth discloses a device (300; see fig. 3 and ¶ 51), comprising:
a pressure sensor (312; see fig. 3 and ¶ 51 and 53) configured to measure water pressure (see ¶ 53);
a communication interface (26; see fig. 1 and ¶ 44); and
a processor (20; see fig. 2 and ¶ 43) configured to:
receive a water pressure measurement from the pressure sensor (see ¶ 53),
determine a water temperature (see ¶ 53),
determine, based on the water pressure measurement and the water temperature, whether cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device (see ¶ 53 regarding the flashing/cavitation).
Hollingsworth does not explicitly teach:
the processor being configured to transmit, via the communication interface and in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device, a signal indicating that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur.
However, Munk teaches a processor (not labeled but see ¶ 194 regarding the disclosed processing unit) configured to transmit, via a communication interface (84; see ¶ 193 and 194) and in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device, a signal indicating that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur (see ¶ 193).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hollingsworth’s processor to be configured to transmit, via the communication interface and in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device, a signal indicating that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur because cavitation can critically damage fluid hardware such as suggested in ¶ 127 of Munk and a signal associated with stopping of such hardware in the event of detected cavitation can also be enabled in such an event such as also suggested in ¶ 63 of Munk.
As to claim 6: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising: a database configured to store information identifying a plurality of vapor pressure values corresponding to a plurality of temperature values (see Hollingsworth ¶ 4).
As to claim 11: Hollingsworth discloses a method (see ¶ 6), comprising:
measuring, in a water meter (5; see fig. 1 and ¶ 34), water pressure (see ¶ 53);
determining, in the water meter, a temperature of the water (see ¶ 53);
determining, based on the measured water pressure and the temperature, whether cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the water meter (see ¶ 53 regarding the flashing/cavitation).
Hollingsworth does not explicitly teach:
transmitting, in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the water meter or likely to occur in the water meter, a signal indicating that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur.
However, Munk teaches transmitting, in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in a device or likely to occur in a device, a signal indicating that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur (see ¶ 193).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hollingsworth’s method to include transmitting, in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the water meter or likely to occur in the water meter, a signal indicating that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur because cavitation can critically damage fluid hardware such as suggested in ¶ 127 of Munk and a signal associated with stopping of such hardware in the event of detected cavitation can also be enabled in such an event such as also suggested in ¶ 63 of Munk.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollingsworth US PG-PUB 2022/0260469 A1 (hereafter Hollingsworth) in view of Munk US PG-PUB 2019/0339162 A1 (hereafter Munk) as applied above, and further in view of Brennan, Jr. et al. US PG-PUB 2016/0351028 A1 (hereafter Brennan).
As to claim 2: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including wherein the device (300 of Hollingsworth) comprises a water meter (5 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 1 and ¶ 34) and a processor (20; see fig. 2 and ¶ 43) transmitting a signal (see ¶ 193 of Munk) but does not explicitly teach:
when transmitting the signal, the processor is configured to transmit the signal to an entity associated with providing water to customers.
However, Brennan teaches a transmitted signal being transmitted to an entity associated with providing water to customers (see ¶ 55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hollingsworth’s processor to transmit the signal to an entity associated with providing water to customers because such a signal can alert a water provider of a condition such as tampering of a water meter of a water consumer, such as suggested in ¶ 55 of Brennan because such tampering could be indicative of theft, such as also suggested in ¶ 10 of Brennan.
As to claim 12: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 11, including a water meter (5 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 1 and ¶ 34), but does not explicitly teach:
transmitting the signal to a water utility associated with the water meter.
However, Brennan teaches a transmitted signal being transmitted to a water utility associated with a water meter (see ¶ 55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hollingsworth’s method to include transmitting a signal to a water utility associated with a water meter because such a signal can alert a water provider of a condition such as tampering of a water meter of a water consumer, such as suggested in ¶ 55 of Brennan because such tampering could be indicative of theft, such as also suggested in ¶ 10 of Brennan.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollingsworth US PG-PUB 2022/0260469 A1 (hereafter Hollingsworth) in view of Munk US PG-PUB 2019/0339162 A1 (hereafter Munk) as applied above, and further in view of Anklin US PG-PUB 2022/0018698 A1 (hereafter Anklin).
As to claim 4: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a processor (20 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 2 and ¶ 43) and wherein the device comprises a water meter (5 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 1) and a pressure sensor (312 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 3 and ¶ 51 and 53), but does not explicitly teach:
the pressure sensor is located in a metering channel of the water meter, and wherein when determining a water temperature, the processor is configured to one of: receive the water temperature from a temperature sensor included in the water meter, or estimate the water temperature based on a time of flight of ultrasound signals through a portion of the water meter.
However, Anklin teaches a pressure sensor being located in a metering channel of a water meter (34; see fig. 4 and ¶ 37), and wherein when determining a water temperature, a processor (26; see ¶ 39) is configured to one of: receive the water temperature from a temperature sensor included in the water meter (see ¶ 38), or estimate the water temperature based on a time of flight of ultrasound signals through a portion of the water meter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hollingsworth’s device such that the pressure sensor is located in a metering channel of the water meter, and wherein when determining a water temperature, the processor is configured to one of: receive the water temperature from a temperature sensor included in the water meter, or estimate the water temperature based on a time of flight of ultrasound signals through a portion of the water meter because pressure and temperature parameters in a flow meter are art recognized parameters that are important in determination of the density and flow rate of a medium in a flow device, such as suggested in Anklin ¶ 1, 11, and 48. Accordingly, the measurement of such pressure and temperature is useful to the determination of a flow rate of a fluid moving in Hollingsworth’s device which is useful because such a flow rate can determine whether a leak is present or can verify an expected amount of fluid delivery to a desired location agrees with the actual measured amount of fluid passing through the device.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollingsworth US PG-PUB 2022/0260469 A1 (hereafter Hollingsworth) in view of Munk US PG-PUB 2019/0339162 A1 (hereafter Munk) as applied above, and further in view of Tofaili et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0363578 A1 (hereafter Tofaili).
As to claim 8: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including wherein the device comprises a water meter (5 of Hollingsworth), and the processor (20 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 2 and ¶ 43) determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device (see ¶ 53 of Hollingsworth regarding the flashing/cavitation), but does not explicitly teach:
the processor configured to wait a predetermined period of time prior to generating a meter reading, in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device.
However, Tofaili teaches a processor (not labeled but see the disclosed “microcontroller” in ¶ 78) configured to wait a predetermined period of time prior to generating a meter reading in response to determine that cavitation is occurring in a device or likely to occur in the device (see ¶ 78).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hollingsworth’s processor to be configured to wait a predetermined period of time prior to generating a meter reading, in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device because cavitation can interfere with operation of a fluid system such as suggested in Tofaili ¶ 5 and accordingly a wait time provides the useful benefit of ensuring the pumps in such a fluid system are functioning as intended once any air bubbles indicative of cavitation are cleared from the fluid system such as also suggested in ¶ 78 of Tofaili which thus ensures proper operation of such a fluid system.
As to claim 16: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 11, including a water meter (5 of Hollingsworth), and determining that cavitation is occurring in the water meter or likely to occur in the water meter (see ¶ 53 of Hollingsworth regarding the flashing/cavitation), but does not explicitly teach:
the method further comprising waiting a predetermined period of time prior to generating a meter reading, in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device.
However, Tofaili teaches waiting a predetermined period of time prior to generating a meter reading in response to determine that cavitation is occurring in a device or likely to occur in the device (see ¶ 78).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hollingsworth’s method to include waiting a predetermined period of time prior to generating a meter reading, in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device because cavitation can interfere with operation of a fluid system such as suggested in Tofaili ¶ 5 and accordingly a wait time provides the useful benefit of ensuring the pumps in such a fluid system are functioning as intended once any air bubbles indicative of cavitation are cleared from the fluid system such as also suggested in ¶ 78 of Tofaili which thus ensures proper operation of such a fluid system.
Claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollingsworth US PG-PUB 2022/0260469 A1 (hereafter Hollingsworth) in view of Munk US PG-PUB 2019/0339162 A1 (hereafter Munk) as applied above, and further in view of Papaleo et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0273629 A1 (hereafter Papaleo).
As to claim 9: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a device (300 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 3 and ¶ 51) that comprises a water meter (5 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 1 and ¶ 34) and a processor (20 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 2 and ¶ 43) configured to transmit data (see ¶ 44 of Hollingsworth), but does not explicitly teach:
the processor configured to transmit a water pressure measurement to a service provider associated with monitoring the water meter.
However, Papaleo teaches a processor (140; see ¶ 68) configured to transmit a water pressure measurement to a service provider associated with monitoring the water meter (see ¶ 68 and 80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hollingsworth’s processor to be configured to transmit a water pressure measurement to a service provider associated with monitoring the water meter because such a water pressure measurement transmission can be useful in allowing a water service provider to control water flow to a customer remotely in the event of non-payment, such as suggested in Papaleo ¶ 68 and 80 and is therefore useful in persuading a customer to properly pay for a provided service/good without requiring direct intervention by the provider of the service/good at the location of said service/good.
As to claim 10: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk and Papaleo teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the water pressure measurement is used by the service provider to adjust a system parameter associated with the device (see Papaleo ¶ 68).
As to claim 17: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 11, including a water meter (5 of Hollingsworth; see fig. 1 and ¶ 34) and transmitting measured water pressure (see ¶ 44 and 53 of Hollingsworth), but does not explicitly teach:
transmiting a water pressure measurement to a service provider associated with monitoring the water meter.
However, Papaleo teaches transmitting a water pressure measurement to a service provider associated with monitoring the water meter (see ¶ 68 and 80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Hollingsworth’s method include transmitting a water pressure measurement to a service provider associated with monitoring the water meter because such a water pressure measurement transmission can be useful in allowing a water service provider to control water flow to a customer remotely in the event of non-payment, such as suggested in Papaleo ¶ 68 and 80 and is therefore useful in persuading a customer to properly pay for a provided service/good without requiring direct intervention by the provider of the service/good at the location of said service/good.
As to claim 18: Hollingsworth as modified by Munk and Papaleo teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising adjusting a parameter of the water meter based on the measured water pressure (see Papaleo ¶ 68).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe, Jr. et al. US Pat 9,255,578 B2 (hereafter Sharpe) in view of Hollingsworth US PG-PUB 2022/0260469 A1 (hereafter Hollingsworth) and Munk US PG-PUB 2019/0339162 A1 (hereafter Munk).
As to claim 19: Sharpe discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see col. 14, lines 43-60) having stored thereon sequences of instructions which, when executed by at least one processor (see col. 16, lines 22-30) included in a device (see col. 16, lines 22-30).
Sharpe does not explicitly teach:
the processor being configured to:
receive a water pressure measurement from a pressure sensor;
determine a water temperature;
determine, based on the water pressure measurement and water temperature, whether cavitation is occurring or likely to occur.
However, Hollingsworth discloses a processor (20; see fig. 2 and ¶ 43) configured to:
receiving a water pressure measurement from a pressure sensor (312; see fig. 3 and ¶ 51 and 53);
determine a water temperature (see ¶ 53);
determinebased on the water pressure measurement and the water temperature, whether cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur (see ¶ 53 regarding the flashing/cavitation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharpe’s processor to be configured to receive a water pressure measurement from a pressure sensor; determine a water temperature; determine, based on the water pressure measurement and water temperature, whether cavitation is occurring or likely to occur because detection of flashing or cavitation is useful in determining true vapor pressure, as suggested in Hollingsworth ¶ 56, and vapor pressure and flashing/cavitation can lead to unsafe fluid conditions such as further suggested in ¶ 2 and 3 of Hollingsworth. Accordingly, knowing the vapor pressure is useful to an operator because they can then be made aware of what pressure is acceptable so as to avoid an unsafe operating condition.
Sharpe also does not explicitly teach:
the processor being configured to transmit, via the communication interface and in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device, a signal indicating that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur.
However, Munk teaches a processor (not labeled but see ¶ 194 regarding the disclosed processing unit) configured to transmit, via a communication interface (84; see ¶ 193 and 194) and in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device, a signal indicating that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur (see ¶ 193).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sharpe’s processor to be configured to transmit, via the communication interface and in response to determining that cavitation is occurring in the device or likely to occur in the device, a signal indicating that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur because cavitation can critically damage fluid hardware such as suggested in ¶ 127 of Munk and a signal associated with stopping of such hardware in the event of detected cavitation can also be enabled in such an event such as also suggested in ¶ 63 of Munk.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7, 13-15, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 3: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a processor configured to ignore meter readings from a water meter in response to detecting that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 2.
As to claim 5: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a device wherein the metering channel has a first cross-sectional area at an input side of the metering channel and second cross-sectional area at a location associated with the pressure, wherein the first cross-sectional area is greater than the second cross-sectional area, when considered in combination with the other limitations recites in parent claims 1 and 4.
As to claim 7: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a device wherein the processor is configured to determine that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur when the water pressure measurement is less than the identified vapor pressure value, when considered with the other limitations recited in the instant claim and with those of parent claims 1 and 6.
As to claim 13: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a processor configured to ignore meter readings from a water meter in response to detecting that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 11 and 12.
As to claim 14: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method wherein the water meter includes a metering channel and measuring the water pressure comprises measuring the water pressure at a location of the metering channel that has a smaller cross-sectional area than an input side of the metering channel, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 11.
In particular, while Anklin is considered to teach a water meter (34; see fig. 4 and ¶ 37) with a metering channel (see fig. 4) but is silent regarding the water pressure being measured at a location of the measuring channel having a smaller cross-sectional area than an input side of the metering channel and there does not appear to be any modification, teaching, suggestion, or motivating reason of the cited prior art that would render this feature obvious to the skilled artisan.
As to claim 15: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein determining whether cavitation is occurring or likely to occur comprises accessing a database configured to store information identifying a plurality of vapor pressure values corresponding to a plurality of temperature values, comparing the measured water pressure to the identified vapor pressure value, and determining that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur when the measured water pressure is less than the identified vapor pressure value, when considered with the other limitations recited in the instant claim and with those of parent claim 11.
As to claim 20: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein determining whether cavitation is occurring or likely to occur comprises accessing a database configured to store information identifying a plurality of vapor pressure values corresponding to a plurality of temperature values, comparing the measured water pressure to the identified vapor pressure value, and determining that cavitation is occurring or likely to occur when the measured water pressure is less than the identified vapor pressure value, when considered with the other limitations recited in the instant claim and with those of parent claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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 at 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 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights