DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or
improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible
harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where
the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not
patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either
anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg,
140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d
2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van
Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may
be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting
provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the
examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the
scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP
§§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor
to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the
form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or
PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely
online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-
processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal
Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9258952 and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10188050; claim 1 of US Patent No. 10999983 and claims 1 of US Patent No. 11477950. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because the current claims are broader than the patented claims.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without
significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to an abstract idea.
Specifically, claim 1 recites the following:
1. A method of controlling irrigation, the method comprising:
receiving water usage information corresponding to a first volumetric water usage at a site
location having an irrigation controller, wherein the first volumetric water usage
corresponds to volumetric water usage from a beginning of a budget period of time to a
first time within the budget period of time;
determining automatically whether a volumetric water budget at the site location will be
met for the budget period of time based on at least the first volumetric water usage, the
volumetric water budget corresponding to a specified volume of water for use at the site location during the budget period of time;
determining in response to the determination that the volumetric water budget is predicted to be exceeded, whether there is a specified restriction that prevents an authorization of further irrigation that is predicted to exceed the volumetric water budget;
determining automatically, in response to the determination that the volumetric water budget is predicted to be exceeded and the determination that the specified restriction that prevents the authorization of further irrigation that is predicted to exceed the volumetric water budget, adjustments to the irrigation by the irrigation controller, wherein the adjustments comprises reductions of runtimes of predicted remaining irrigation events predicted to be implemented during the budget period of time to compensate for an amount of water usage predicted to exceed the volumetric water budget over the predicted remaining irrigation events; and outputting first signaling to effect the adjustment.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the
remaining limitations are "additional elements".
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea because it is analogous to
other ideas identified as abstract in court decisions. For instance, referring to the December
2016: Interim Eligibility Guidance Quick Reference Sheet, it is analogous to “Collecting and
analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected”
(FairWarning v. Iatric). These abstract ideas constitute an algorithm which in theory could be
carried out as a purely mental process- a human can track and observe their water usage for
example- chart their water uses from their water bill during the summer months and use such
data to predict and budget how much to water their grass and how much money they intend to
spend during the hot months of the summer the following year- changing the frequency/duration
of their irrigation system or sprinkler in order to stay within budget- this can be adjusted in a
programmable sprinkler timer/ irrigation system.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because the
elements of the claim are recited in a high level of generality and they are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Receiving water usage information is merely insignificant data gathering which is essentially required if the algorithm is to be carried out; the “water budget” and “specified restrictions” only generally links the use of the abstract idea to a field of use, rather than narrowing the claim to a particular application of the abstract idea. Outputting the result of the algorithm is merely routing extra-solution activity. The claim does not, for instance. recite any particular details of the irrigation controller nor does it particularly limit how the controller collects the data or how the method outputs the result of the algorithm.
As such, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the
other claim elements do not make the claim as a whole more than the abstract idea itself. Rather
than being a particular limited application of the abstract idea which serves to improve a specific
method or device, the claim would monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
Savelle, JR et al (US 2009/0271045).
1. A method of controlling irrigation, the method comprising:
receiving water usage information corresponding to a first volumetric water usage at a site
location having an irrigation controller, wherein the first volumetric water usage corresponds to
volumetric water usage from a beginning of a budget period of time to a first time within the
budget period of time (Abs., [0010; 0012; 0069; 0072; 0076; 0078-80]);
determining automatically whether a volumetric water budget at the site location will be met for
the budget period of time based on at least the first volumetric water usage, the volumetric water
budget corresponding to a specified volume of water for use during the budget period of time ([0011-0012; 0078; 0081; 0093; 0094;
0095; 0173-0174] for example- estimated water needs; estimates foliage water needs); and
predicting irrigation volumetric water usage for each of the one or more identified predicted
irrigation events ([0081; 0173; 0174]); and
determining in response to the determination that the volumetric water budget is predicted to be exceeded, whether there is a specified restriction that prevents an authorization of further irrigation that is predicted to exceed the volumetric water budget ([0081; 0173; 0174]);
determining automatically, in response to the determination that the volumetric water budget is predicted to be exceeded and the determination that the specified restriction that prevents the authorization of further irrigation that is predicted to exceed the volumetric water budget, adjustments to the irrigation by the irrigation controller, wherein the adjustments comprises reductions of runtimes of predicted remaining irrigation events predicted to be implemented during the budget period of time to compensate for an amount of water usage predicted to exceed the volumetric water budget over the predicted remaining irrigation events (Abs.,
[0079-0081; 0125; 0132; 0150; 0153]); and
outputting first signaling to effect the adjustment ([0153]; Fig.s 1A; 1B; 3).
;
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al (US 20090099701); Walker et al (AU 2010303421) and .Addink et al US 6892113) teach predicting water usage for water management of irrigation systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M MENZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1697. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/LAURA M MENZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
9/18/26
Prosecution Insights