DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 16 September 2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 September 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. In this case, the Applicant has titled the invention, “Information Processing Apparatus, Method, and System,” which is not descriptive of the claimed invention, and thus, a new title is required.
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 10 and 11 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.
With respect to claim 10, the Applicant claims, “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate proportions of water in a case where a groundwater plant is constructed in a situation where water is obtained from a water source other than groundwater.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has recited that the step of estimating proportions of water in a case where a groundwater plant is constructed in a situation where water is obtained from a water source other than groundwater; however, this is unclear, as the proportion of water from a groundwater plant being constructed would be zero, as the claim states that this is only performed when water is not obtained from groundwater. As such, it remains unclear how water can be obtained from a groundwater plant, in the situation when no ground water is obtained. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the estimated proportions of water in a case where a groundwater plant is constructed in a situation where water is obtained from a water source other than groundwater, to be zero. Claim 11 depends on claim 10, and is rejected via dependency.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite estimating a usage quantity of water by a consumer in a predetermined period based on a past usage quantity of water by the consumer; and determining proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that is artificially supplied, in such a manner as to minimize, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, a charge based on expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source and a charge for the supplied water.
The limitations of estimating a usage quantity of water by a consumer in a predetermined period based on a past usage quantity of water by the consumer, and determining proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that is artificially supplied, in such a manner as to minimize, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, a charge based on expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source and a charge for the supplied water; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass the management of commercial activities (business relations, sales activities), and elements that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (processing circuitry), the claims recite an abstract idea. In this case, estimating the quantity of water a consumer will used in a future time period, and determining proportions of water to be obtained from a plurality of water sources that satisfies the estimated quantity and minimizes the cost of purifying and supplying the water; encompass the managing of business relations between a consumer and water suppliers, wherein a customer’s future usage is estimated, and an operation plan is generated to supply water from different sources that minimize the cost of the water and satisfy the expected needs. Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims recite estimating the quantity of water a consumer will used in a future time period, and determining proportions of water to be obtained from a plurality of water sources that satisfies the estimated quantity and minimizes the cost of purifying and supplying the water; which are elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (processing circuitry) as tools used to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-13, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite determining the proportions of water using a trained model or a mathematical optimization algorithm; which further encompass reciting the type of algorithm used to make determination of proportions of water, which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite determining the proportions of water with consideration given to a water quantity of the water source; which further recite managing business relations and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite determining a control schedule of equipment that treats the water; which further recite managing human behavior and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 4). In addition, the claims recite controlling the equipment based on the determined control schedule; which is deemed extrasolution activity, what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see at least paragraphs 85-87 which describe controlling equipment to treat water at such a high level of generality, that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it to be well-understood and conventional in order to satisfy 112a) and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite determining the control schedule based on a water quantity of the water source; which further recite managing human behavior and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 5). In addition, the claims further recite determining the control schedule based on a charge for electricity used in the equipment; which further recite managing business relations, managing human behavior, and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite ordering artificial supply of water based on the control schedule; which further recite managing business relations and sales activities, managing human behavior, and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 7). In addition, the claims further recite calculating a usage charge of water based on the charge for the supplied water and the expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source; which further recite managing business relations and sales activities, and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 8). In addition, the claims further recite giving a privilege based on the calculated usage charge to a consumer; which encompasses providing a rebate or discount to a user base don the calculated charge; which further recite managing business relations and sales activities, and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 9). In addition, the claims further recite estimating proportions of water in a case where a groundwater plant is constructed in a situation where water is obtained from a water source other than groundwater; which further recite managing business relations (forming an operation plan based on different parameters) and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 10). In addition, the claims further recite performing a simulation of amortizing construction expense of the groundwater plant is performed; which further recite managing business relations and sales activities (planning pricing based on costs) and mental activity (evaluation, judgement); and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 11). In addition, the claims further recite determining proportions a plurality of water sources in such a manner as to minimize a charge based on expense of purifying water discharged from the consumer, expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source, and the charge for the supplied water, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity; which further recites the abstract idea recited in the independent claims; and thus, further recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 12). In addition, the claim further defines the types of sources of water; which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 12). In addition, the claims further recite the consumer is an assemblage consisting of one entity or a plurality of consumers; which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 13).
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger et al. (WO 2011/121535 A2) (hereinafter Kruger), in view of 김영화 et al. (KR 101685165) (hereinafter KR165).
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 15, Kruger states:
Estimate a usage quantity of water by a consumer in a predetermined period based on a past usage quantity of water by the consumer (See at least page 9 paragraph 6 through page 10 paragraph 2, page 14 paragraphs 4 and 5, page 31 paragraphs 3 and 4, page 34 paragraphs 3 and 6, page 35 paragraph 4 through page 36 paragraph 1, page 37 paragraph 3, and page 38 paragraph 1 which describe estimating the quantity of water that a consumer will need in a future time period based on past usage and current measurements).
Determine proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that is artificially supplied, in such a manner as to minimize, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, purifying the water obtained from the water source and a charge for the supplied water (See at least page 10 paragraph 4 through page 11 paragraph 2, page 13 paragraph 3 through page 14 paragraph 1, page 31 paragraphs 3 and 4, page 31 paragraphs 7 and 8, page 32 paragraphs 2-5, page 33 paragraph 4, page 34 paragraphs 4 and 6, page 35 paragraph4 through page 36 paragraph 2, and page 38 paragraphs 1 and 2 which describe determining a water supply plan for providing water to a consume that satisfies their estimated needs, while accounting for the purification if needed, and minimizing the cost to the consumer, wherein the water is supplied from multiple sources of water, and the plan includes different proportions from the different sources).
Kruger discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 15 as stated above. Kruger does not explicitly disclose the following, however KR165 teaches:
Determine proportions between water obtained from a water source and supplied water that is artificially supplied, in such a manner as to minimize a charge based on expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source and a charge for the supplied water (See at least page 1 paragraph 7, page 2 paragraphs 2-4, page 3 paragraph 3, page 4 paragraphs 1, 3, and 6, page 6 paragraph 5, and page 7 paragraphs 2-6 which describe determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of estimating the future water needs of a customer based on historic and present usage of water, wherein proportions of water to provide to the customer from different sources are determined in a manner to satisfy the needs of the customer and minimize the cost of the water for the customer, wherein the purification of the water is accounted for in the determination of Kruger, with the system and method of determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source of KR165. By accounting for the price of purification of water, a water planning system will predictably be able to determine the total costs for a consumer, and thus prevent unnecessary costs, when a more efficient or less expensive option is available that satisfies their requirements., and thus encouraging further use of the service.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Kruger and KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Kruger teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the proportions of water using a trained model or a mathematical optimization algorithm (See at least page 10 paragraph 4 through page 11 paragraph 2, page 13 paragraph 3 through page 14 paragraph 1, page 31 paragraphs 3 and 4, page 31 paragraphs 7 and 8, page 32 paragraphs 2-5, page 33 paragraph 4, page 34 paragraphs 4 and 6, page 35 paragraph4 through page 36 paragraph 2, and page 38 paragraphs 1 and 2 which describe determining the optimal proportions of water from different sources to provide a user, wherein the proportions are determined using a mathematical optimization model).
With respect to claim 3, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Kruger teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the proportions of water with consideration given to a water quantity of the water source (See at least page 10 paragraph 4 through page 11 paragraph 2, page 13 paragraph 3 through page 14 paragraph 1, page 31 paragraphs 3 and 4, page 31 paragraphs 7 and 8, page 32 paragraphs 2-5, page 33 paragraph 4, page 34 paragraphs 4 and 6, page 35 paragraph4 through page 36 paragraph 2, and page 38 paragraphs 1 and 2 which describe determining the optimal proportions of water from different sources to provide a user, wherein the proportions take into account the water quality of the source).
With respect to claim 4, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, KR165 teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine, based on the determined proportions of water, a control schedule of equipment that treats the water obtained from the water source and control the equipment based on the determined control schedule (See at least page 1 paragraph 7, page 3 paragraph 5, page 4 paragraphs 1 and 3, and page 7 paragraphs 2-6 which describe generating an operation plan for supplying water, wherein the plan includes a control schedule for controlling treatment equipment for treating water obtained from a source that requires it, and wherein the equipment is controlled according to the schedule).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of estimating the future water needs of a customer based on historic and present usage of water, wherein proportions of water to provide to the customer from different sources are determined in a manner to satisfy the needs of the customer and minimize the cost of the water for the customer, wherein the purification of the water is accounted for in the determination of Kruger, with the system and method of determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source, wherein an operation plan includes a control schedule for controlling treatment equipment for treating water obtained from a source that requires it, and wherein the equipment is controlled according to the schedule
of KR165. By creating and using an operation schedule for treatment equipment, a water supplier will predictably be able to generate an appropriate quality of water at the most optimal cost expenditure, therefore predictably decreasing the cost of the water to be supplied.
With respect to claim 5, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 as stated above. In addition, KR165 teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the control schedule based on a water quantity of the water source (See at least page 1 paragraph 7, page 3 paragraph 5, page 4 paragraphs 1 and 3, and page 7 paragraphs 2-6 which describe generating an operation plan for supplying water, wherein the plan includes a control schedule for controlling treatment equipment for treating water obtained from a source that requires it, and wherein the schedule is based on the quality of the water source and the operating cost of using the equipment).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of estimating the future water needs of a customer based on historic and present usage of water, wherein proportions of water to provide to the customer from different sources are determined in a manner to satisfy the needs of the customer and minimize the cost of the water for the customer, wherein the purification of the water is accounted for in the determination of Kruger, with the system and method of determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source, wherein an operation plan includes a control schedule for controlling treatment equipment for treating water obtained from a source that requires it, wherein the equipment is controlled according to the schedule, and wherein the schedule is based on the quality of the water source and the operating cost of using the equipment of KR165. By creating and using an operation schedule for treatment equipment, a water supplier will predictably be able to generate an appropriate quality of water at the most optimal cost expenditure, therefore predictably decreasing the cost of the water to be supplied.
With respect to claim 6, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 as stated above. In addition, KR165 teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the control schedule based on a charge for electricity used in the equipment (See at least page 1 paragraph 7, page 3 paragraph 5, page 4 paragraphs 1 and 3, and page 7 paragraphs 2-6 which describe generating an operation plan for supplying water, wherein the plan includes a control schedule for controlling treatment equipment for treating water obtained from a source that requires it, and wherein the schedule is based on the quality of the water source and the operating cost of using the equipment).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of estimating the future water needs of a customer based on historic and present usage of water, wherein proportions of water to provide to the customer from different sources are determined in a manner to satisfy the needs of the customer and minimize the cost of the water for the customer, wherein the purification of the water is accounted for in the determination of Kruger, with the system and method of determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source, wherein an operation plan includes a control schedule for controlling treatment equipment for treating water obtained from a source that requires it, wherein the equipment is controlled according to the schedule, and wherein the schedule is based on the quality of the water source and the operating cost of using the equipment of KR165. By creating and using an operation schedule for treatment equipment, a water supplier will predictably be able to generate an appropriate quality of water at the most optimal cost expenditure, therefore predictably decreasing the cost of the water to be supplied.
With respect to claim 7, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 as stated above. In addition, KR165 teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to order artificial supply of water based on the control schedule (See at least page 1 paragraph 7, page 3 paragraph 5, page 4 paragraphs 1 and 3, and page 7 paragraphs 2-6 which describe generating an operation plan for supplying water, wherein the plan includes a control schedule for controlling treatment equipment for treating water obtained from a source that requires it, and wherein the water is supplied and equipment is controlled according to the schedule).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of estimating the future water needs of a customer based on historic and present usage of water, wherein proportions of water to provide to the customer from different sources are determined in a manner to satisfy the needs of the customer and minimize the cost of the water for the customer, wherein the purification of the water is accounted for in the determination of Kruger, with the system and method of determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source, wherein an operation plan includes a control schedule for controlling treatment equipment for treating water obtained from a source that requires it, and wherein the equipment is controlled according to the schedule
of KR165. By creating and using an operation schedule for treatment equipment, a water supplier will predictably be able to generate an appropriate quality of water at the most optimal cost expenditure, therefore predictably decreasing the cost of the water to be supplied.
With respect to claim 8, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, KR165 teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a usage charge of water based on the charge for the supplied water and the expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source (See at least page 1 paragraph 7, page 2 paragraphs 2-4, page 3 paragraph 3, page 4 paragraphs 1, 3, and 6, page 6 paragraph 5, and page 7 paragraphs 2-6 which describe determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of estimating the future water needs of a customer based on historic and present usage of water, wherein proportions of water to provide to the customer from different sources are determined in a manner to satisfy the needs of the customer and minimize the cost of the water for the customer, wherein the purification of the water is accounted for in the determination of Kruger, with the system and method of determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source of KR165. By accounting for the price of purification of water, a water planning system will predictably be able to determine the total costs for a consumer, and thus prevent unnecessary costs, when a more efficient or less expensive option is available that satisfies their requirements., and thus encouraging further use of the service.
With respect to claim 10, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Kruger teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate proportions of water in a case where a groundwater plant is constructed in a situation where water is obtained from a water source other than groundwater (See at least page 10 paragraph 4 through page 11 paragraph 2, page 13 paragraph 3 through page 14 paragraph 1, page 31 paragraphs 3 and 4, page 31 paragraphs 7 and 8, page 32 paragraphs 2-5, page 33 paragraph 4, page 34 paragraphs 4 and 6, page 35 paragraph4 through page 36 paragraph 2, and page 38 paragraphs 1 and 2 which describe determining a water supply plan for providing water to a consume that satisfies their estimated needs, while accounting for the purification if needed, and minimizing the cost to the consumer, wherein the water is supplied from multiple sources of water, and the plan includes different proportions from the different sources. The Examiner notes that while groundwater can be a source, as disclosed by Kruger, it is only an option, and thus, if no water is obtained from a groundwater source, then the proportion from a constructed groundwater plant would be zero).
With respect to claim 12, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Kruger teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine proportions among circulating water, the water obtained from the water source, and the supplied water in such a manner as to minimize, while satisfying the estimated usage quantity, a charge based on expense of purifying water discharged from the consumer, expense of purifying the water obtained from the water source, and the charge for the supplied water (See at least page 10 paragraph 4 through page 11 paragraph 2, page 13 paragraph 3 through page 14 paragraph 1, page 31 paragraphs 3 and 4, page 31 paragraphs 7 and 8, page 32 paragraphs 2-5, page 33 paragraph 4, page 34 paragraphs 4 and 6, page 35 paragraph4 through page 36 paragraph 2, and page 38 paragraphs 1 and 2 which describe determining a water supply plan for providing water to a consume that satisfies their estimated needs, while accounting for the purification if needed, and minimizing the cost to the consumer, wherein the water is supplied from multiple sources of water, and the plan includes different proportions from the different sources. In addition, the disclosure recites that the sources include groundwater, rainwater, reservoir, a mains water supply from a central works, and greywater sources).
With respect to claim 12, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Kruger teaches:
Wherein a consumer is an assemblage consisting of one entity or a plurality of consumers (See at least page 31 paragraph 6 which describe a customer as including a plurality of different buildings, and thus an assemblage).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger and KR165 as applied to claims 1 and 8 as stated above, and further in view of Loeb et al. (US 2017/0053360 A1) (hereinafter Loeb).
With respect to claim 9, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 as stated above. Kruger and KR165 do not explicitly disclose the following, however Loeb teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to give a privilege based on the calculated usage charge to a consumer (See at least paragraphs 22, 38, 57, and 60 which describe monitoring users’ consumptions levels, generating scores for the users based on their consumption levels, and generating a discount for their consumption on their bill, and further discounts based on further consumption levels).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of estimating the future water needs of a customer based on historic and present usage of water, wherein proportions of water to provide to the customer from different sources are determined in a manner to satisfy the needs of the customer and minimize the cost of the water for the customer, wherein the purification of the water is accounted for in the determination of Kruger, with the system and method of determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source of KR165, with the system and method of monitoring users’ consumptions levels, generating scores for the users based on their consumption levels, and generating a discount for their consumption on their bill, and further discounts based on further consumption levels of Loeb. By awarding discounts to users based on their consumption levels, a supplier will predictably be able to encourage users to reduce their consumption levels.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruger and KR165 as applied to claims 1 and 10 as stated above, and further in view of Williams (US 2006/0218103 A1) (hereinafter Williams).
With respect to claim 11, Kruger/KR165 discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as stated above. Kruger and KR165 do not explicitly disclose the following, however Williams teaches:
Wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform a simulation of amortizing construction expense of the groundwater plant is performed (See at least paragraph 119 which describes modelling amortizing of the construction of a plant).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of estimating the future water needs of a customer based on historic and present usage of water, wherein proportions of water to provide to the customer from different sources are determined in a manner to satisfy the needs of the customer and minimize the cost of the water for the customer, wherein the purification of the water is accounted for in the determination of Kruger, with the system and method of determining the proportions of water to provide from different sources, wherein the water sources included those that need to be treated and from a clean main line, wherein the proportions minimize a cost based on the cost to treat the water obtained from a particular source and the cost to supply water from a clean source of KR165, with the system and method of modelling amortizing of the construction of a plant of Williams. By modelling amortizing of the construction of a plant, a water supplier will predictably be able to determine if it makes economic sense to construct a plant, as they’ll be able to model how the debt can be distributed amongst other parties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-4602. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
9 January 2025
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628