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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments beginning on page 8 of Remarks, the applicant argues that Takeda fails to disclose all of the limitations of amended claim 1. Specifically, the applicant argues “Claim 1 has been amended herein and recites, among other things (and similarly to original claim 5), that the processor at each flood monitoring station is configured to "determine a rate of change in the water level and/or rainfall accumulation, compare the rate of change to a rate threshold, and increase the first periodic rate and/or the second periodic rate if the rate of change is greater than or equal to the rate threshold" Claim 5 has been cancelled in light of the amendments to claim 1. In rejecting claim 5, the Office relies on Figure 12 and Paragraphs 0049, 0058, 0075, 0081, 0086, 0088, 0093, 0095 and 0115-0132 of Takeda, and alleges that Takeda discloses "where disaster (flood) threat level is determined based on the rate of change of detected water level and rainfall amount. Based on threat level, the frequencies of water level and rainfall amount detection are increased[]." Applicant respectfully contends that the Office's interpretation of Takeda is mistaken. In sum, while Takeda may arguably recognize an increase in "probability of disaster" based on a change of rate in water level or rainfall, Takeda makes no mention whatsoever of a rate of change. More specifically, Takeda is generally concerned with conserving power consumption when a "probability of disaster" is relatively low. See, e.g., Takeda 7 & Fig. 12 ("the first observation mode is set if it is determined that a probability of disaster occurrence is [relatively low and] the second observation mode is set if it is determined that the probability of disaster occurrence is [relatively high]"). Within that, Takeda does appear to change the rate at which measurements are taken and/or transmitted based on the probability of disaster (see, e.g., Takeda 1 128 ("if the probability of disaster occurrence is high, the sensing information is frequently transmitted if the probability of disaster occurrence is low, the frequency of transmission is low")), and also states that "as the amount of rainfall increases, the probability of occurrence of landslide disaster or flood disaster increases" (Takeda 88). So, Takeda arguably recognizes, e.g., that 2 inches per hour is more dangerous than 1 inch per hour, and the proposition of sampling more often based on a change of rate. But, Takeda says nothing about rate of change. In other words, Takeda's probability of disaster is based on static values, i.e., the current water level and/or the current amount of rainfall. See, e.g., Takeda 88 ("if the amount of rainfall (value per hour, or accumulated amount over a longer span) exceeds a predetermined threshold, it is determined that the probability of disaster occurrence is high."); 1 93 ("when the water level is high, the observation system 100 must operate in an observation mode in which measurement is carried out at a high frequency and with high accuracy."). Takeda is void of any discussion around an increased danger from, e.g., a rainfall amount increasing from 1 inch per hour to 2 inches per hour in 10 minutes, or a water level increasing from 3 feet to 4 feet in 5 minutes - i.e., a rate of change - or of sampling more often because of that rate of change.” The crux of the applicant’s arguments is that Takeda fails to disclose a rate of change in water level and/or rainfall accumulation. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As illustrated and disclosed with respect to Figure 8 of Takeda, both water level and rainfall accumulation are monitored with respect to time. The graph plotting and tracking of both the water level and rainfall accumulation with respect to time is an indication of the rate of the change of both the water level and rainfall accumulation. At the peaks indicated in Figure 8, both water level and rainfall accumulation indicate a potential flooding threat and the frequences of water level and rainfall accumulation detection are increased. Therefore, Takeda discloses the argued limitations of the claims. The previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda (US PgPub 2017/0287308).
Regarding claim 1, Takeda discloses a system for monitoring flooding (Figure 3), the system
comprising: a plurality of flood monitoring stations, each flood monitoring station including a housing, a
water level sensor, a rainfall sensor, a processor, and a wireless communications device (Figure 1, Elements 125, 129, 140, 150, Figure 3, Elements 100-1-100-N and Paragraphs 0058 and 0060 where
each observation system includes both a water level sensor and a weather sensor that detects a rainfall
amount); and a flood warning station in wireless communication with the processor at each flood
monitoring station via the wireless communications device at each flood monitoring station (Figure 3, Element 200 and Paragraphs 0069-0070 where the observation systems are in wireless communication
with a master unit processing device); wherein the processor (Figure 1, Element 140) at each flood
monitoring station is configured to: determine a water level with the water level sensor at a first
periodic rate and compare the water level to a first threshold (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0058, 0093,
0095, 0099 and 0100 where the water level sensor detects water levels and compares the water level to
disaster (flood) triggering levels); determine a rainfall accumulation with the rainfall sensor at a second
periodic rate and compare the rainfall accumulation to a second threshold (Figure 4 and Paragraphs
0078, 0088, 0093, 0094 and 0095 where the weather sensor that detects a rainfall amount detects a
rainfall amount and compares the rainfall amount to disaster (flood) triggering levels); determine a rate of change in the water level and/or rainfall accumulation, compare the rate of change to a rate threshold, and increase the first periodic rate and/or the second periodic rate if the rate of change is greater than or equal to the rate threshold (Figure 8, Figure 12 and Paragraphs 0049, 0058, 0075, 0081, 0086, 0088, 0093-0100 and 0115-0132 where disaster (flood) threat level is determined based on the rate of change of the detected water level and rainfall amount over time. Based on the threat level, the frequencies of water level and rainfall amount detection are increased); assign a threat level to the flood monitoring station based on at least one of the comparison to the first threshold, the comparison to the second threshold, and a combination thereof (Figure 12 and Paragraphs 0049, 0058, 0075, 0081, 0086, 0088, 0093, 0095 and 0115-0132 where disaster (flood) threat level is determined based on the detected water level and rainfall amount); and communicate wirelessly, to the flood warning station, a data packet comprising at least one of a most recent water level, a most recent rainfall accumulation, an assigned threat level, and a combination thereof (Figure 3, Element 200 and Paragraphs 0127, 0140, 0141, 0142 and 0143 where the threat level and/or sensed water level and rainfall amount data are transmitted to the master unit processing device).
Regarding claim 2, Takeda discloses wherein the processor at each flood monitoring station is
further configured to determine whether the assigned threat level is above a minimum threat level
threshold, and communicate the data packet to the flood warning station if the assigned threat level
exceeds the minimum threat level threshold (Figure 3, Element 200 and Paragraphs 0049, 0058, 0075,
0081, 0086, 0088, 0093, 0095, 0115-0132, 0140, 0141, 0142 and 0143 where the threat level and/or
sensed water level and rainfall amount data are transmitted to the master unit processing device when
above predetermined levels).
Regarding claim 3, Takeda discloses wherein the processor at each flood monitoring station is
further configured to include a measurement type identifier in the data packet, wherein the
measurement type identifier is indicative of a type of measurement that caused the assigned threat
level to exceed the minimum threat level threshold (Figure 3, Element 200 and Paragraphs 0049, 0058,
0075, 0081, 0086, 0088, 0093, 0095, 0115-0132, 0140, 0141, 0142 and 0143 where the threat level
and/or sensed water level and rainfall amount data are transmitted to the master unit processing device
when above predetermined levels. Water levels of specific types are identified).
Regarding claim 4, Takeda discloses wherein the processor at each flood monitoring station is
further configured to include a sensor identifier in the data packet, wherein the sensor identifier is
indicative of which sensor sensed the measurement that caused the assigned threat level to exceed the
minimum threat level threshold (Figure 3, Element 200 and Paragraphs 0049, 0058, 0075, 0081, 0086,
0088, 0093, 0095, 0115-0132, 0140, 0141, 0142 and 0143 where the threat level and/or sensed water
level and rainfall amount data are transmitted to the master unit processing device when above
predetermined levels. Water levels of specific types are identified).
Method claims 9-12 and 14 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding system claimed in claims 1-4. Therefore method claims 9-12 and 14 correspond to system claims 1-4 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Method claims 21-22 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding system claimed in claims 1-4. Therefore method claims 21-22 correspond to system claims 1-4 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 6-8 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (US
PgPub 2017/0287308) and in view of Abrahams et al. (hereafter Abrahams)(US 9,600,997).
Regarding claim 6, Takeda discloses wherein each of the plurality of flood monitoring stations is
disposed adjacent to a corresponding waterbody with the water level sensor disposed in sensing communication with the corresponding waterbody; wherein the system comprises or has access to a database comprising water level sensor data, rainfall accumulation data, historical weather data, and electronically stored model data for a geographic area located distally from the plurality of flood monitoring stations; wherein the system is configured to estimate, for the geographic area, at least one of a location of flooding, a depth of flooding, a time of flooding, and a combination thereof, based at least in part on data in the database (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0019 and 0093-0101 where real time and historical water level and rainfall data are used to model and estimate a location and timing of a flood disaster in a geographic area). Takeda does not specifically disclose wherein the system is configured to display, on a graphical user interface of the flood warning station, at least one of the location of flooding, the depth of flooding, the time of flooding, and a combination thereof, for the geographic
area. In the same field of endeavor, Abrahams discloses a flood alert system where a GUI of a user
mobile device is provided with visual representation of flood data. The flood data includes both location
and water depth of the flood event (Figure 8 and Column 15, line 53-Column 16, line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to provide the flood event information display of Abrahams to the flood detection
system of Takeda, thereby providing visual representation of flood event information to a display of the
master unit processing device, motivation being to allow a user to visualize detected and predicted flood
events while further allowing the user to take remedial action. Furthermore, such a modification
involves routine skill in the art and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, Takeda discloses wherein the system is further configured to determine a
flood criticality for the geographic area, wherein the flood criticality is indicative of the likelihood that
flooding will occur in the geographic area, and display the flood criticality on the graphical user interface
(see rejection for claim 6 and Figure 12 and Paragraphs 0045, 0049, 0058, 0075, 0078, 0081, 0086, 0088,
0093, 0095 and 0115-0132 where disaster (flood) threat level is determined based on the detected
water level and rainfall amount in addition to geographic features of an area).
Regarding claim 8, Takeda discloses wherein the electronically stored model data for the
geographic area comprises flood estimation data resulting from the application of one or more
electronically stored rainstorm models to an electronically stored model of the geographic area (Figure 8
and Paragraphs 0019 and 0093-0101 where real time and historical, stored water level and rainfall data
are used to model and estimate a location and timing of a flood disaster).
Method claims 15-16 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding system claimed in
claims 6-7. Therefore method claims 15-16 correspond to system claims 6-7 and are rejected for the
same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 17, Takeda does not specifically disclose wherein the geographic area comprises
a segment of roadway. In the same field of endeavor, Abrahams discloses a flood alert system in a city
environment where a GUI of a user mobile device is provided with visual representation of flood data.
The flood data includes both location and depth of the flood event on a roadway (Figure 8 and Column
15, line 53-Column 16, line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to provide the flood event information display on a roadway of Abrahams to the
flood detection system of Takeda, thereby providing visual representation of flood event information to
a display of the master unit processing device, motivation being to allow a user to visualize detected and
predicted flood events while further allowing the user to take remedial action in various flood settings.
Furthermore, such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would have been obvious absent of unexpected
results.
Regarding claim 18, Takeda discloses creating an electronically stored model of the geographic
area; creating an electronically stored model of a rainstorm; applying the electronically stored model of
the rainstorm to the electronically stored model of the geographic area; and dynamically updating the
flood criticality for the geographic area (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0019 and 0093-0101 where real time
and historical, stored water level and rainfall data are used to model and estimate a location and timing
of a real time flood disaster).
Regarding claim 19, Takeda discloses accessing a database comprising water level sensor data,
rainfall accumulation data, and historical weather data; and creating an electronically stored predictive
model of the geographic area (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0019 and 0093-0101 where real time and
historical, stored water level and rainfall data are used to model and estimate/predict a location and
timing of a real-time flood disaster).
Regarding claim 20, Takeda discloses electronically triangulating flooding in a geographic area
based at least in part on one or more of the determined water level and the determined rainfall
accumulation from each of the plurality of flood monitoring stations (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0019 and
0093-0101 where real time and historical, stored water level and rainfall data are used to model and
estimate/predict a location (triangulating) and timing of a real-time flood disaster). Takeda does not
specifically disclose where the geographic area is a roadway segment and displaying, on a graphical user
interface of the flood warning station, a visual representation of the flooding on the roadway segment.
In the same field of endeavor, Abrahams discloses a flood alert system in a city environment where a
GUI of a user mobile device is provided with visual representation of flood data. The flood data includes
both location and depth of the flood event on a roadway (Figure 8 and Column 15, line 53-Column 16,
line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to provide the flood event information display on a roadway of Abrahams to the
flood detection system of Takeda, thereby providing visual representation of flood event information to
a display of the master unit processing device, motivation being to allow a user to visualize detected and
predicted flood events while further allowing the user to take remedial action in various flood settings.
Furthermore, such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights