DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 23, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-3 are amended. Claims 1-6 remain pending and will be examined herein.
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.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-6 is hereby withdrawn pursuant to the amendments filed on 6/8/2026.
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Number JP5773905, Sakuma, et al., hereinafter Sakuma in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP2003345898, Nakamura, et al., hereinafter Nakamura and further in view of Japanese Patent Number 3973195,Suzuki, et al.,hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma discloses an earthquake security system comprising:
gas meters located at respective consumer's places, (para. 19, a housing and measures a gas usage amount of a consumer), each of the gas meters including
a measurer that measures gas flowing to a gas appliance, (Para. 0019 via a flow rate sensor that measures the amount of gas used by a consumer),
an acceleration sensor that detects acceleration, (Para. 0019 via an acceleration sensor),
a main body that accommodates the measurer and the acceleration sensor, (Para. 0019 via housing),
a calculator that calculates an earthquake index value and an inclination of the main body based on a detection result of the acceleration sensor, the earthquake index value indicating the scale of an earthquake, the inclination being based on an initial position of the main body, (Para. 0028 and 0035 which discloses determining inclination and earthquake index value after an earthquake has occurred).
Sakuma does not explicitly disclose the following:
a communicator that communicates with an outside; and
a center server that receives the earthquake index values and the inclinations through the communicators, wherein the center server includes priority ranking determination logic having a two dimensional data structure, the two dimensional data structure having a first axis associated with inclination of the main body and a second axis associated with earthquake index value, and the two dimensional data structure defining a plurality of regions each corresponding to one of a plurality of priority rankings.
However, Nakamura teaches a communicator that communicates with an outside, (Para. 0018 discloses the seismic meter transmitting earthquake information to the host computer via the network); and
a center server that receives the earthquake index values and the inclinations through the communicators, (Para. 0018 discloses the seismic meter transmitting earthquake information to the host computer via the network. The transmitted earthquake information may be indicator values of the earthquake ground motion, such as max acceleration, a max speed, measured earthquake intensity and SI value, an index indicating a possibility of suffering from a disaster, or data indicating characteristics of the detected earthquake motion such as real-time earthquake waveform data can be used).
At the time of Applicant’s filed invention, It would be obvious to modify the concept of a gas meter determining the occurrence of an earthquake as taught by the Sakuma reference to include the concept of having the meter communicate the determined earthquake information with a central server in order to provide emergency response when a house is at risk, (see Nakamura para. 7).
Sakuma in view of Nakamura does not teach wherein the center server includes priority ranking determination logic having a two dimensional data structure, the two dimensional data structure having a first axis associated with inclination of the main body and a second axis associated with earthquake index value, and the two dimensional data structure defining a plurality of regions each corresponding to one of a plurality of priority rankings.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the center server includes priority ranking determination logic having a two dimensional data structure, the two dimensional data structure having a first axis associated with inclination of the main body and a second axis associated with earthquake index value, and the two dimensional data structure defining a plurality of regions each corresponding to one of a plurality of priority rankings, (para. 3, restoration work is planned in consideration of the urgency of the restoration work, para. 5, order of visit priority according to the degree of disaster for each region, and para. 7, when there are a plurality of damaged locations in each building, the document output means is configured to perform recovery work in order of priority for each damaged location, not for each building. A disaster recovery system, characterized in that a recovery schedule table is displayed for each location with a priority ranking for recovery).
At the time of Applicant's filed invention, it would be obvious to modify the concept of a gas meter determining the occurrence of an earthquake as taught by the Sakuma reference to include the concept of having the meter communicate the determined earthquake information with a central server as taught by Nakamura (see Nakamura p.7), and further to determine a priority ranking in consideration of the urgency of the restoration work that needs to be performed as taught by the Suzuki reference, (Suzuki para. 3), to provide emergency response when a house is at risk.
Regarding claim 2, Sakuma in view of Nakamura and further in view of Suzuki discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Sakuma in view of Nakamura does not disclose wherein the center server determines priority rankings of recovery work of the gas meters with the priority ranking determination logic based on the earthquake index values and the inclinations.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the center server determines priority rankings of recovery work of the gas meters with the priority ranking determination logic based on the earthquake index values and the inclinations, (para. 3, restoration work is planned in consideration of the urgency of the restoration work, para. 5, order of visit priority according to the degree of disaster for each region, and para. 7, when there are a plurality of damaged locations in each building, the document output means is configured to perform recovery work in order of priority for each damaged location, not for each building. A disaster recovery system, characterized in that a recovery schedule table is displayed for each location with a priority ranking for recovery).
At the time of Applicant's filed invention, it would be obvious to modify the concept of a gas meter determining the occurrence of an earthquake as taught by the Sakuma reference to include the concept of having the meter communicate the determined earthquake information with a central server as taught by Nakamura (see Nakamura p.7), and further to determine a priority ranking in consideration of the urgency of the restoration work that needs to be performed as taught by the Suzuki reference, (Suzuki para. 3), to provide emergency response when a house is at risk.
Regarding claim 3, Sakuma in view of Nakamura and further in view of Suzuki discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Sakuma in view of Nakamura does not disclose wherein regardless of the earthquake index values, the priority ranking determination logic of the center server sets a priority ranking of recovery work of the gas meter having the inclination of a threshold or more to be higher than a priority ranking of recovery work of the gas meter having the inclination of less than the threshold.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein regardless of the earthquake index values, the priority ranking determination logic of the center server sets a priority ranking of recovery work of the gas meter having the inclination of a threshold or more to be higher than a priority ranking of recovery work of the gas meter having the inclination of less than the threshold, (para. 4, the information indicating the disaster type and the disaster level in the disaster occurrence area are input, the predicted disaster location and its state according to the disaster type and the disaster level are input, para. 16, “Order of visit priority” is determined by the degree of disaster in each region. Level 1 disaster areas will be visited preferentially over level 2 disaster areas). Examiner interprets the level of degree of disaster use to determine the order of visit priority to be analogous to a threshold used to determine the priority ranking of recovery work.
At the time of Applicant's filed invention, it would be obvious to modify the concept of a gas meter determining the occurrence of an earthquake as taught by the Sakuma reference to include the concept of having the meter communicate the determined earthquake information with a central server as taught by Nakamura (see Nakamura p.7), and further to determine a priority ranking in consideration of the urgency of the restoration work that needs to be performed as taught by the Suzuki reference, (Suzuki para. 3), to provide emergency response when a house is at risk.
Regarding claim 4, Sakuma in view of Nakamura and further in view of Suzuki discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Sakuma in view Nakamura does not disclose wherein the center server informs a gas supplier of the gas meter having the priority ranking of a predetermined value or more.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the center server informs a gas supplier of the gas meter having the priority ranking of a predetermined value or more, (para. 4, the information indicating the disaster type and the disaster level in the disaster occurrence area are input, the predicted disaster location and its state according to the disaster type and the disaster level are input, para. 16, “Order of visit priority” is determined by the degree of disaster in each region. Level 1 disaster areas will be visited preferentially over level 2 disaster areas, para. 22, When a plurality of predicted disaster locations are obtained, they are sorted by the sorting means 25, and are arranged in order from the ones that need to be quickly restored. This makes it clear where the recovery work should begin for a particular customer. The material output means 26 summarizes the contents, and creates the damage situation interview investigation material 27, the countermeasure table 18 and the traveling team organization list, and para. 36, using the disaster recovery program, the damage situation interview survey material as described above is created. In step S5, the person in charge dispatched to the site is arranged. If the person in charge close to the site does not make it in time, the person in charge is called from each branch to secure the necessary number of people. This is because, in step S4, it is already known that what kind of content should be investigated for how many customers, so a team of necessary engineers can be created to conduct efficient interview surveys. You can make a dispatch plan). Suzuki teaches that when the damages are assessed, the priority of repairs is determined and the appropriate persons are dispatched to the site to make the necessary repairs.
At the time of Applicant's filed invention, it would be obvious to modify the concept of a gas meter determining the occurrence of an earthquake as taught by the Sakuma reference to include the concept of having the meter communicate the determined earthquake information with a central server as taught by Nakamura (see Nakamura p.7), and further to determine a priority ranking in consideration of the urgency of the restoration work that needs to be performed as taught by the Suzuki reference, (Suzuki para. 3), to provide emergency response when a house is at risk.
Regarding claim 6, Sakuma in view of Nakamura and further in view of Suzuki discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Sakuma teaches wherein at least one of the acceleration sensors is a piezoelectric element, (para. 29, the acceleration sensor 3 is a sensor that detects accelerations in X, Y, and Z axes orthogonal to each other. For example, a Wheatstone bridge circuit is configured using a piezoresistive element).
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Number JP5773905, Sakuma, et al., hereinafter Sakuma in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP2003345898, Nakamura, et al., hereinafter Nakamura and further in view of Japanese Patent Number JP3973195, Suzuki, et al., hereinafter Suzuki and further in view of Japanese Patent Number JP3644209, Iwanaga, et al., hereinafter Iwanaga.
Regarding claim 5, Sakuma in view of Nakamura and further in view of Suzuki discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Sakuma in view of Nakamura and further in view of Suzuki does not teaches wherein at least one of the measurers is an ultrasonic flow meter.
However, Iwanaga teaches wherein at least one of the measurers is an ultrasonic flow meter, (para. 50, wherein at least one of the measurers is an ultrasonic flow meter),
At the time of Applicant's filed invention, it would be obvious to modify the concept of a gas meter determining the occurrence of an earthquake as taught by the Sakuma reference to include the concept of having the meter communicate the determined earthquake information with a central server as taught by Nakamura (see Nakamura p.7), and further to determine a priority ranking in consideration of the urgency of the restoration work that needs to be performed as taught by the Suzuki reference, (Suzuki para. 3) using the ultrasonic flow meter as taught by the Iwanaga reference, (Iwanaga para. 50), to provide emergency response when a house is at risk.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed June 8, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-6 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Earthquake early warning system (US 5625138 A) teaches an early warning system for providing notice that seismic activity, such as an earthquake, is imminent. The earthquake early warning system includes a subterranean detector unit assembly having a plurality of detector units carried by a subterranean inverted conduit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00PM (EST).
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights