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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment for application number 19/100,243 received on 05/14/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-2, and 4-9 are amended, currently pending, and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Upon review of amended claims, the specification objection previously applied are withdrawn.
Upon review of amended claims, the claim interpretation under §112(f) previously applied are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to the claims have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pgs. 9-10): “It is respectfully submitted that claimed invention in accordance with amended independent claims 1, 7, and 9 provide an improvement over the conventional technology in that with distributed water circulation models, the target space is divided into small meshes, and the water circulation can be reproduced according to the physical laws of the water circulation in each mesh.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicants’ claims do not represent an improvement to technology because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, add significantly more, and otherwise represent an improvement to technology. The additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, add significantly more, and otherwise represent an improvement to technology because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software (engine) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment, the internet, online). Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Response to §103 arguments – Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §103 rejections previously applied to the claims have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pg. 11): “First of all, it is respectfully submitted that Helmick is merely related to a technology for water quality management and closed-loop water control, which is entirely different from the present application. In particular, Helmick does not teach or remotely suggests the functions of the claimed factor value acquisition unit, the claimed calculation unit, and the claimed output unit. Second, it is respectfully submitted that Fleming is merely related to a technology for demand forecasting based on analysis of water usage. In other words, Helmick is directed to real-time control technology, whereas Fleming is directed to demand forecasting. Therefore, these references belong to entirely different technical fields, and therefore it is respectfully submitted that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of these two references. Furthermore, Helmick does not use a water circulation model, and Fleming is directed to demand forecasting rather than to a physical model such as a water circulation model. Finally, it is respectfully submitted that Kharel does not cure the deficiencies of Helmick and Fleming because Kharel is merely related to oil field and fluid analysis technologies, and therefore it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Kharel with Helmick and Fleming.”. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the cited art is directed to the same field of endeavor as Applicants’ claims (i.e., managing water resources): Helmick et al. (US 20230288945 A1) is directed to a water control system, Fleming et al. (US 20170270621 A1) is directed to creating and managing intelligent water points in resource constrained regions, and Kharel et al. (US 12480927 B1) is directed to managing water used in extraction of fluids from subsurface formations wherein water is stored in a plurality of water pits and wherein water is obtained from one or more water wells. Therefore, the cited references are in the same field of endeavor as Applicants’ claims and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references as shown in the prior art rejections below.
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 1-2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as further set forth in MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-6 is/are directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e., Manufacture), claims 7-8 are directed to a method (i.e., Process), and claim 9 is/are directed to program (Regarding the program, par. [0205] discloses: Each program for causing the computer system 800 to execute the functions of the information processing apparatus and the like in the foregoing embodiment may be stored in a optical disk 8101 that is inserted into the optical disk drive 8012, and be transmitted to the hard disk8017.). As such, the program is an “Item of Manufacture”. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claims 1, 7, and 9 recite a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer readable memory for providing products for sale in an online store. As drafted, the limitations recited by the claims fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Independent claims 1/9 recite an apparatus and a program with the following abstract limitations: “acquire monitoring information on an environmental factor related to a circulation state of water resources in a target area; determine whether or not a predetermined condition regarding a change in the monitoring information acquired is satisfied; acquire a future factor value that is a predicted future value of the environmental factor related to the change in the monitoring information, in a case in which it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied; acquire a water balance calculated value regarding a balance of the water resources in the target area, based on the future factor value; and output information on a future circulation state of the water resources in the target area, based on the water balance calculated value, acquires the water balance calculated value using a distributed water circulation model in which the circulation state of the water resources in the target area is modeled, the model being configured using a large number of meshes that are obtained by dividing the target area into a grid pattern and that are each subjected to application of values related to two or more environmental factors.”. But for the recitation of additional elements, the steps in independent claims 1 and 9 could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper.
Independent claim 7 recites a method with the following abstract limitations: “an acquiring step of acquiring monitoring information on an environmental factor related to a circulation state of water resources in a target area; a determining step of determining whether or not a predetermined condition regarding a change in the monitoring information is satisfied; a factor value acquiring step of acquiring a future factor value that is a predicted future value of the environmental factor related to the change in the monitoring information, in a case in which it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied; and a calculating step of acquiring a water balance calculated value regarding a balance of the water resources in the target area, based on the future factor value, wherein the method is used to evaluate a risk related to the water resources in the target area or to conduct research on implementation of a measure to prevent manifestation of the risk, and wherein the method acquires the water balance calculated value using a distributed water circulation model in which the circulation state of the water resources in the target area is modeled, the model being configured using a large number of meshes that are obtained by dividing the target area into a grid pattern and that are each subjected to application of values related to two or more environmental factors.”. The steps in independent claim 7 could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, and 8 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely a processor from independent claims 1 and 9, these additional elements have been evaluated but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment).
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, and 8 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely a processor from independent claims 1 and 9, these additional element(s) has/have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software (engine) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment, the internet, online) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, and 8 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The ordered combination of elements in the claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmick et al. (US 20230288945 A1, hereinafter “Helmick”), in view of Fleming et al. (US 20170270621 A1, hereinafter “Fleming”), in further view of Kharel et al. (US 12480927 B1, hereinafter “Kharel”).
Regarding claims 1/7/9: Helmick teaches
an information processing apparatus, and a program ([Abstract] A water control system includes at least one water effect device configured to use a water source to emit water responsive to a control signal, a plurality of sensors configured to generate water condition data of a closed-loop water source, and a controller having a processor and a memory.; [0006] a method includes generating water condition data using a plurality of sensors of a closed-loop water source and determining that a water condition of the closed-loop water source is outside of a pre-determined tolerance based on the water condition data.) with the following limitations:
a processor configured to acquire monitoring information on an environmental factor related to a circulation state of water resources in a target area; ([0005] The memory may store instructions executable by the processor that cause the controller to receive the water condition data from the plurality of sensors.; [0019] water source 124 as provided herein may additionally or alternatively be a body of water such as a pond, lagoon, fountain, or aquarium.; [0027] the sensors 146 may monitor a water condition (e.g., quality), such as water level, pH levels, flow rate, chemical composition, bacterial composition, temperature, etc.);
the processor configured to determine whether or not a predetermined condition regarding a change in the monitoring information acquired by the processor is satisfied; ([0005] The memory may store instructions executable by the processor that cause the controller to receive the water condition data from the plurality of sensors.; [0023] The water control system may include a water monitoring system 114 that monitors one or more water conditions of the closed-loop system and outputs a signal to the water control system. The water monitoring system 114 may include one or more sensors 146 that monitor a condition of the water, such as to water quality (e.g., passing, failing), chemical composition, pH, bacteria of the water in the closed-loop system (e.g., closed-loop water source, secondary water source) to ensure water conditions are within tolerance (e.g., allowable range). For example, the water monitoring system 114 may receive a signal indicative of one or more water conditions of the closed-loop water source 124 and determine if the water conditions are within tolerance. The water monitoring system 114 may output this signal to the water control system. Further, the water monitoring system 114 may receive a signal of water conditions with the secondary water source. In an embodiment, the water control system may receive the signal and cause the devices 134 to automatically switch a water source. The default state of the devices 134 may be to draw water from the closed-loop water source 124 and the water control system may cause the devices 134 to switch to drawing water from the secondary water source, in response to a signal from the water monitoring system 114.; [0026] The monitoring system 132 may be a user or virtual machine that sends real time water conditions and task notifications to resolve the water conditions outside the pre-determined threshold. For example, an operator may receive the task notification via the operator device 120 and manually stop water flow within the closed-loop system via a stopping mechanism (e.g., button, indication on operator device) to override an activate water flow signal if the operator finds any issues beyond those determined by the water effect controller 114.);
in a case in which it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied; ([0026] The monitoring system 132 may be a user or virtual machine that sends real time water conditions and task notifications to resolve the water conditions outside the pre-determined threshold. For example, an operator may receive the task notification via the operator device 120 and manually stop water flow within the closed-loop system via a stopping mechanism (e.g., button, indication on operator device) to override an activate water flow signal if the operator finds any issues beyond those determined by the water effect controller 114.);
Helmick doesn’t explicitly teach:
the processor configured to acquire a future factor value that is a predicted future value of the environmental factor related to the change in the monitoring information,
the processor configured to acquire a water balance calculated value regarding a balance of the water resources in the target area, based on the future factor value;
and the processor configured to output information on a future circulation state of the water resources in the target area, based on the water balance calculated value,
wherein the processor acquires the water balance calculated value using a distributed water circulation model in which the circulation state of the water resources in the target area is modeled, the model being configured using a large number of meshes that are obtained by dividing the target area into a grid pattern and that are each subjected to application of values related to two or more environmental factors.
Fleming teaches:
the processor configured to acquire a future factor value that is a predicted future value of the environmental factor related to the change in the monitoring information, ([0005] The memory may store instructions executable by the processor that cause the controller to receive the water condition data from the plurality of sensors.; [0010] the computer system is further configured to generate a water point forecast for the water point from the water point data hub, and use the water point forecast to generate the water risk score vector; [0028] the water point data is selected from a water level, a water usage rate, and a water quality);
the processor configured to acquire a water balance calculated value regarding a balance of the water resources in the target area, based on the future factor value; ([0005] The memory may store instructions executable by the processor that cause the controller to receive the water condition data from the plurality of sensors.; [0069] The system comprises a module that converts a water consumers required water quantities to marginal water loss values when the required water quantities are not supplied. The system further comprises a module that dynamically generates a water risk score after comparing marginal water related costs incurred by consumer to marginal water supply cost. A “low” score approaching zero means negligible marginal water related costs would be incurred at the current water supply levels and no actions are required to reduce water scarcity and potential economic loss. In contrast, a “high” score means there is a significant difference between the marginal water related impact costs and the cost of improving the water supply. To reduce the gap, the consumer must act to reduce water consumption levels or increase the water supply.; [0077] Examples of water point data may include an instantaneous stored amount of water (e.g., a water level in a storage tank), a usage rate over time (e.g., an aggregate usage or a time-averaged usage from a tank or standpipe), a water quality, a replenishment rate, and the like.; [0088] System 100 includes Usage Analytics and Prediction Module 301, which accesses the water data hub to provide analyses and predictions based on the data received and processed. The module uses known descriptive and predictive analytics algorithms. For example, using aggregated water level inputs or flow inputs the algorithms generate consumption profiling summarized hourly, daily, weekly or monthly consumption.);
and the processor configured to output information on a future circulation state of the water resources in the target area, based on the water balance calculated value, ([0005] The memory may store instructions executable by the processor that cause the controller to receive the water condition data from the plurality of sensors.; [0059] the water risk signal is an alert suitable for display on a monitor or is a signal suitable for initiating an automated process; [0098] Furthermore, the water risk score (where used as an initiator for the signal) or the notification can be configured to appear on any suitable display screen (including display screens associated with mobile devices, emergency services, service provider computer screens, and the like).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Helmick with Fleming’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to determine the conditions that increase the marginal cost of supply, such as: borehole depth; increased potential of poor water quality; declining water levels; and increasing demand (Fleming; [0103]). By incorporating the teachings of Fleming, one would’ve been able to predict a future factor, calculate water balance, and display the information to a user.
Fleming doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein the processor acquires the water balance calculated value using a distributed water circulation model in which the circulation state of the water resources in the target area is modeled, the model being configured using a large number of meshes that are obtained by dividing the target area into a grid pattern and that are each subjected to application of values related to two or more environmental factors.
Kharel teaches:
wherein the processor acquires the water balance calculated value using a distributed water circulation model in which the circulation state of the water resources in the target area is modeled, the model being configured using a large number of meshes that are obtained by dividing the target area into a grid pattern and that are each subjected to application of values related to two or more environmental factors. ([Figs. 4-6, and 13-16]; [Abstract] System and methods for water management method for managing water used in extraction of fluids from subsurface formations wherein water is stored in a plurality of water pits and further wherein water is obtained from one or more water wells. The method includes simulating water pit volumes to determine a water level in each of the water pits at a pit volume simulation time; performing water chemistry analysis to determine one or more chemical properties of water stored in one of the water pits; performing a mapping operation to determine one or more pipeline routes, pit-pit transfer lines, and gathering systems; performing water pit evaporation analysis for a water pit evaporation simulation time; and performing a cost data capture to determine forecast costs at a cost data capture simulation time.; [Column 4, Lines 16 – 36] FIG. 5 is a screen shot of an example pit volume planning module of the present disclosure. In the left pane, the Hearns pit reuse for Sep. 9, 2019 is illustrated. This show in-flows and out-flows for the Hearns pit. The icons on the left with the percentage values inside them represent individual pits. The icons under the wells represent wells that were scheduled to be pulling water from the selected pit. In the upper right hand pane is a chart showing fracture needs in barrels (orange), volume of water in the pit (green), and fill rate (in barrels/day) in blue. In the lower right-hand pane is a chart showing fill rate, volume of the pit, amount of water transferred to Galaxy bit, amount of water transferred to Klondike pit, and amount of water for fracturing need by day. Other example embodiments work on other time scales (for example, hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly). In certain example embodiments, the pit volume simulator is linked to a completions schedule and the design. As the completions/reservoir team change the design, or the schedule certain implementations will recalculate the required water volumes for completions, and calculate the remaining pit volumes in real time.; [Column 4, Lines 37 – 49] FIG. 6 is a diagram of a map view of the water management system. Nodes in the map may include one or more of facilities, wells, pits, sensors, and risers. The nodes may be connected by one or more pipelines or flowline. As shown in the figure the pipelines may be for fresh water, reuse, or gathering. In the application, a user may also include proposed pipeline or flowlines. Certain example embodiments feature a fully editable map that is built out as edges (pipes) and nodes (anything else). Certain example embodiments include integrated sensors or SCADA systems.; [Column 8, Lines 61 – 64] FIG. 13 is a set of screenshots showing user interfaces related to pit volume simulation. A fracturing schedule and a graphical representation of pit connections is used to provide inputs to the pit volume simulator.; [Column 9, Lines 1 – 4] FIG. 15 is a screenshot of a user interface for flowback volume planning showing outputs of projected production for existing wells and new flowbacks. Also shown is a calculation of a peak water flow rate.; [Column 9, Lines 5 – 8] FIG. 16 is a screenshot of a user interface for flowback volume planning showing outputs of warnings where peak flow rate is greater than total pump capacity. Also shown is the existing facility pumping capacity. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the “Accum Water Production” dashboard widget from Fig. 4 as equivalent to a grid pattern from the area subjected to the application of the values and ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Helmick with Kharel’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to provide one or more real-time metrics for any production well (Kharel; [Column 4, Lines 47 – 48]). By incorporating the teachings of Kharel, one would’ve been able to calculate the water level using a methodology that segments the area of the water source to determine individual segment level.
Regarding claim 2: Helmick teaches:
wherein the monitoring information relates to two or more environmental factors, ([0027] the sensors 146 may monitor a water condition (e.g., quality), such as water level, pH levels, flow rate, chemical composition, bacterial composition, temperature, etc.);
and the processor specifies an environmental factor related to the change in the monitoring information, out of the two or more environmental factors, in a case in which it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied, ([0033] The measured pH value or values may be compared to a pre-set desired pH range (e.g., about 7.2 to about 7.8). In another example, the water level may be measured by optical sensors to determine if there is sufficient water within the reservoir of the devices 134; [0034] If the water conditions are or the overall water condition is within tolerance (e.g., passing), the water control system may activate water flow to water-based effects (block 208).).
Helmick doesn’t explicitly teach:
and acquires the future factor value of the specified environmental factor.
Fleming teaches:
and acquires the future factor value of the specified environmental factor. ([0070] The system comprises a module that anticipates future water usage based on the likely future context and related activities. Given likely future water use, a module may be progressively updating the digital aquifer comparing future water usage to available water supply.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Helmick with Fleming’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to predict water scarcity (Fleming; [0070]). By incorporating the teachings of Fleming, one would’ve been able to acquire a future factor of the specified environmental factor.
Regarding claim 4: Helmick teaches:
wherein the processor further acquires information indicating uncertainty of the future factor value, ([0042] Water level in the device 134 may be considered since it ensures that the reservoir contains enough water to sustain continuous creation of the water-based effect.);
Helmick doesn’t explicitly teach:
the processor further acquires information on uncertainty of the water balance calculated value, based on the future factor value and the information indicating uncertainty thereof,
and the processor performs the output, based on the water balance calculated value and the information indicating uncertainty thereof.
Fleming teaches:
the processor further acquires information on uncertainty of the water balance calculated value, based on the future factor value and the information indicating uncertainty thereof, ([0056] In an aspect is a method comprising: receiving, by a computer system via a network, water point data from a water point sensor about a water point remotely located with respect to the computer system, and storing the received water point data in a water point data hub; receiving, by the computer system, secondary data from a secondary data source and storing the received secondary data in the water point data hub; correlating the secondary data with the water point data; and identifying a water risk from the water point data hub, the water risk exceeding a threshold risk, and generating a customized water risk signal configured to initiate a water risk mitigation step.; [0057] the threshold is a predetermined threshold that factors user needs (e.g., water usage both immediate and/or historical for the specific user and/or nearby users, etc.), supply situations (e.g., availability of nearby supply, quality of nearby supply, etc.));
and the processor performs the output, based on the water balance calculated value and the information indicating uncertainty thereof. ([0058] the water risk signal is configured for transmission via a network (e.g., the Internet or a cellular network); [0059] the water risk signal is an alert suitable for display on a monitor or is a signal suitable for initiating an automated process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Helmick with Fleming’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to dynamically annotate and link the water point data with metadata values (Fleming; [0051]). By incorporating the teachings of Fleming, one would’ve been able to acquire water balance uncertainty information and output the information to a user.
Regarding claim 5: Helmick doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein the processor acquires the future factor value and the information indicating uncertainty thereof, for each of two or more environmental factors,
and the processor acquires, for each environmental factor, primary information on uncertainty of the water balance calculated value, based on the information indicating uncertainty of the future factor value of the environmental factor,
and acquires information on uncertainty of the water balance calculated value by synthesizing (averaging) the primary information respectively acquired for the two or more environmental factors.
Fleming teaches:
wherein the processor acquires the future factor value and the information indicating uncertainty thereof, for each of two or more environmental factors, ([0028] the water point data is selected from a water level, a water usage rate, and a water quality);
and the processor acquires, for each environmental factor, primary information on uncertainty of the water balance calculated value, based on the information indicating uncertainty of the future factor value of the environmental factor, ([0029] the water risk score vector may result in consumption rate/pattern, water level, forecasted water point, etc., and is generated using variables extracted from the water point analysis, contextual information and other external data sources, and provides predicted risk levels;
and acquires information on uncertainty of the water balance calculated value by synthesizing (averaging) the primary information respectively acquired for the two or more environmental factors. ([0077] Examples of water point data may include an instantaneous stored amount of water (e.g., a water level in a storage tank), a usage rate over time (e.g., an aggregate usage or a time-averaged usage from a tank or standpipe), a water quality, a replenishment rate, and the like.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Helmick with Fleming’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to provide water point data for a plurality of water points (Fleming; [0077]). By incorporating the teachings of Fleming, one would’ve been able to acquiring factor values for two or more environmental factors, calculating uncertainty and synthesizing water information.
Regarding claim 6: Helmick teaches
wherein the processor is configured to be able to acquire the water balance calculated value based on values related to two or more environmental factors, ([0027] the sensors 146 may monitor a water condition (e.g., quality), such as water level, pH levels, flow rate, chemical composition, bacterial composition, temperature, etc.);
the information processing apparatus further comprises a processor that extracts an environmental factor whose influence on the water balance calculated value is large enough to satisfy a predetermined condition, by causing the processor to acquire the water balance calculated value while changing the value of each environmental factor, thereby performing a sensitivity analysis on an influence of the environmental factor on the water balance calculated value in the target area, ([0042] Water level in the device 134 may be considered since it ensures that the reservoir contains enough water to sustain continuous creation of the water-based effect. For example, guests using water blasters may expect a full minute of the water-based effect. If the reservoir does not have enough water to meet expectations, the guest may be disappointed by the experience. The sensors 146 may detect water levels in the reservoir of the device 134 or in the closed-loop water source 124, which may include water levels in the reservoir of the ride vehicle 115, the devices 134, and/or the closed-loop water source 124. The threshold or tolerance for the water level may be set to allow a constant flow of water from the device 134 for creation of the water-based effect.);
and the processor is configured to acquire monitoring information on the environmental factor extracted by the extracting unit. ([0042] In another embodiment, proper water level may be a water condition considered by the water monitoring system 114 when determining water flow for water-based effects. Water level in the device 134 may be considered since it ensures that the reservoir contains enough water to sustain continuous creation of the water-based effect. For example, guests using water blasters may expect a full minute of the water-based effect. If the reservoir does not have enough water to meet expectations, the guest may be disappointed by the experience. The sensors 146 may detect water levels in the reservoir of the device 134 or in the closed-loop water source 124, which may include water levels in the reservoir of the ride vehicle 115, the devices 134, and/or the closed-loop water source 124. The threshold or tolerance for the water level may be set to allow a constant flow of water from the device 134 for creation of the water-based effect.).
Regarding claim 8: Helmick teaches
wherein in the factor value acquiring step, information indicating uncertainty of the future factor value is further acquired, in the calculating step, information on uncertainty of the water balance calculated value is further acquired… …and the information indicating uncertainty thereof, ([0042] Water level in the device 134 may be considered since it ensures that the reservoir contains enough water to sustain continuous creation of the water-based effect. For example, guests using water blasters may expect a full minute of the water-based effect. If the reservoir does not have enough water to meet expectations);
and the information processing method further comprises a comparing step of comparing the water balance calculated value with a predetermined threshold value, based on the information on uncertainty of the water balance calculated value. ([0043] In yet another embodiment, proper water composition may be a water condition considered by the water monitoring system 114 when determining passing water conditions. Water composition may be considered to ensure chemical balance of the water, which may further ensure minimization of water contamination. The sensors 146 may detect pH level for the closed-loop system, which may include pH levels of water in the devices 134, the closed-loop water source 124, and/or the water attraction 112. Maintaining proper water composition, such as by the pH level and/or chlorine levels, may prevent guest discomfort upon water contact, maintain equipment, and maintain chlorine functionality to prevent contamination. The tolerance for the pH level may be set at 7.2 to 7.8. Another sub-factor that may be used as an indicator for proper water composition may include, but is not limited to, the presence or absence of specific contaminants. Such contaminants may include bacteria, chemicals, particulates, or a combination thereof. The threshold may be set according to a tolerable level of the type and amount of contamination.).
Helmick doesn’t teach:
…based on the future factor value…
Fleming teaches:
…based on the future factor value… ([0069] The system comprises a module that converts a water consumers required water quantities to marginal water loss values when the required water quantities are not supplied. The system further comprises a module that dynamically generates a water risk score after comparing marginal water related costs incurred by consumer to marginal water supply cost. A “low” score approaching zero means negligible marginal water related costs would be incurred at the current water supply levels and no actions are required to reduce water scarcity and potential economic loss. In contrast, a “high” score means there is a significant difference between the marginal water related impact costs and the cost of improving the water supply. To reduce the gap, the consumer must act to reduce water consumption levels or increase the water supply.; [0077] Examples of water point data may include an instantaneous stored amount of water (e.g., a water level in a storage tank), a usage rate over time (e.g., an aggregate usage or a time-averaged usage from a tank or standpipe), a water quality, a replenishment rate, and the like.; [0088] System 100 includes Usage Analytics and Prediction Module 301, which accesses the water data hub to provide analyses and predictions based on the data received and processed. The module uses known descriptive and predictive analytics algorithms. For example, using aggregated water level inputs or flow inputs the algorithms generate consumption profiling summarized hourly, daily, weekly or monthly consumption.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Helmick with Fleming’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to determine the conditions that increase the marginal cost of supply, such as: borehole depth; increased potential of poor water quality; declining water levels; and increasing demand (Fleming; [0103]). By incorporating the teachings of Fleming, one would’ve been able to base the calculation on the future factor value.
Accordingly, claims 1-2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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 Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights