DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,357. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,357 which encompasses the same metes, bounds, and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadwick et al. (US 2017/0238401) in view of Zhu et al. (US 9,936,451).
Regarding claims 1, 15, 20, Sadwick discloses a system for detecting or predicting water damage to a structure, the system (page 20, [0256]) comprising: one or more energy-harvesting sensors on or within the structure, wherein each sensor of the one or more energy-harvesting sensors is configured to (i) generate sensor data indicative of one or more characteristics of air (temperature), construction materials, and/or water within the structure and (ii) generate power for operating the sensor responsively to an external stimulus other than an electrical power source (page 12, [0203-0204]);
one or more processors (fig. 9); and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method (page 12, [0203-0204]) comprising: detecting or predicting water damage to the structure by analyzing at least the
sensor data (page 20, [0255-0256]), and causing an indication of the detected or predicted water damage to be presented to a user (page 20, [0255-0256]).
Sadwick discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose receiving sensor data generated by the one or more energy-harvesting sensors.
However, Zhu discloses receiving sensor data generated by the one or more energy-harvesting sensors (page 15, [cl. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of Zhu within the system of Sadwick in order to provide the necessary power to support the energy-harvesting sensors thereby increasing the reliability of the system.
Regarding claims 2, 16, Sadwick discloses wherein the one or more energy-harvesting sensors
include one or more sensors each configured to generate power for operating the sensor
responsively to water flowing past the sensor (page 20, [0255-0256]).
Regarding claim 3, Sadwick discloses wherein the one or more sensors are positioned within one
or more pipes or fixtures of the structure (page 12, [0203-0204]).
Regarding claims 4, 17, Sadwick discloses wherein the one or more energy-harvesting sensors
include one or more sensors cach (i) comprising a material configured to expand when becoming
wet and (ii) configured to generate power for operating the sensor responsively to the material
expanding (page 20, [0255-0256]).
Regarding claims 5, 18, Sadwick discloses wherein the one or more energy-harvesting sensors
include one or more sensors each (i) comprising one or more solar cells and (ii) configured to
generate power for operating the sensor responsively to the one or more solar cells collecting
solar energy (page 12, [0203-0204]).
Regarding claims 6, 19, Sadwick discloses wherein the one or more energy-harvesting sensors
includes one or more sensors each of which is configured to generate power for operating the
sensor responsively to a temperature differential across two regions of the sensor (page 12, [0203-0204]).
Regarding claim 7, Sadwick discloses wherein the one or more sensors are positioned proximate
to a water heater within the structure (page 20, [0255-0256]).
Regarding claim 8, Sadwick discloses wherein the one or more energy-harvesting sensors
includes one or more energy-harvesting sensors embedded within construction materials of the
structure (page 12, [0203-0204]).
Regarding claim 9, Sadwick discloses wherein the sensor data is indicative of at least one
characteristic of air within the structure, the at least one characteristic of air including one or
more of: air temperature; air humidity; air movement; or airborne particle count (page 12, [0203]).
Regarding claim 10, Sadwick discloses wherein the sensor data is indicative of at least one
characteristic of construction materials within the structure, the at least one characteristic of
construction materials including or more of: moisture of the construction materials; or
impedance of the construction materials (page 12, [0203-0204]).
Regarding claim 11, Sadwick discloses wherein the sensor data is indicative of at least one
characteristic of water within the structure, the at least one characteristic of water including or
more of: a presence of pooled water within the structure; or a flow of water within the structure (page 20, [0255-0256]).
Regarding claim 12, Sadwick discloses wherein causing the indication of the detected or predicted
water damage to be presented to the user includes: generating an alert; and transmitting the alert to a device of the user (page 20, [0255-0256]).
Regarding claim 13, Sadwick discloses wherein transmitting the alert includes: causing an application executing on a mobile device of the user to display the alert (page 20, [0255-0256]).
Regarding claim 14, Sadwick discloses wherein the alert includes a report indicating one or more
characteristics of the detected or predicted water damage, including at least a location of the
detected or predicted water damage within the structure (page 20, [0255-0256]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tyler (US 2012/0289869) discloses devices……..brain activity.
Dong et al. (US 8,509,060) discloses active-avoidance……network.
Ely (US 2012/0273023) discloses collapsible reflector for solar panel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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, Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
September 12, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights