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 action is in reply to the communications filed on 07/09/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 07/09/2026 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 112 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 12-15 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 8-14 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. In view of the amendments to claim 8, the §112 rejection has been overcome and withdrawn herein accordingly.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 12-15 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 6 of this final office action.
On pages 12-15 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the amended claim features provide an improvement to technology and implement the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended independent claims recite additional elements that implement the abstract idea into a practical application.
As currently amended, the independent claims recite a “plurality of flow monitoring sensors installed in water pipes of a target scenario and a plurality of water quality monitoring sensors installed in the water pipes”. These additional elements, as currently drafted, merely serve as generic computer components to collect information utilized to perform the abstract idea (i.e., collecting real-time water usage information comprising water flow and water quality parameters of each water pipe). Examiner notes, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The amended claim limitations directed towards “preprocessing the real-time water usage information by performing data cleaning and denoising” are further considered to recite concepts of mental processes. As currently drafted, these limitations could be practically performed by a human using mental steps to analyze and organize a set of collected data. The claim does not provide any further technical details for the process of “performing data cleaning and denoising” that would reasonably preclude a human using mental steps from performing these claim steps as currently drafted.
The amended claim limitations directed towards “determining a historical water usage mode corresponding to the target scenario based on fluctuation information of water usage and historical water quality information obtained from historical water usage information, the fluctuation information comprising changes in water usage in different seasons and changes in water usage during day and night” also further describe the abstract idea of mental processes. A human using mental steps would be reasonably capable of obtaining a set of information (i.e., the fluctuation information and historical water quality information), analyzing the obtained information, and displaying a particular result of the analysis (i.e., determining a historical water usage mode based on the obtained and analyzed information). Examiner notes, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) and “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
The amended claim limitations directed towards obtaining temperature/humidity/rainfall information from a plurality of environmental monitoring sensors are further considered to be additional elements that merely serve as generic computer components and instructions to perform the abstract idea. As noted above, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The remaining amended claim limitations directed towards “generating a water usage strategy based on the target environment information, comprising: determining water usage time based on the temperature information, determining an target water usage based on the humidity information, and the rainfall information; and generating the water usage strategy based on the water usage time and the target water usage” are further considered to recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, these limitations recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and exercising judgement to generate a water usage strategy based on the collected/analyzed information. Accordingly, these claim limitations cannot be considered to recite additional elements that implement the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered to be a part of the abstract idea itself.
Although the Applicant argues that the amended independent claim features further improve the “accuracy and reliability of the status of determining the water usage” (see pg. 14, Response) and enhance “water conservation efficiency, reduces waste, and enables timely detection of leaks and water quality issues” (see pg. 15, Response), Examiner notes that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself […] is not an improvement in technology” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). That is, the amended claims, at best, reflect an improvement to the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing information without any further technical improvement to the technology itself. As noted above, the additional elements of the amended claim include a plurality of flow monitoring sensors, water quality monitoring sensors, and environmental monitoring sensors that merely serve as generic computer tools to collect information utilized to perform the abstract idea. The recited use of these additional elements do not reflect an improvement to the sensor technology itself, the functioning of a computer, or any other technological environment. Accordingly, the claims do not demonstrate any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 15-26 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
On pages 15-26 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest the elements of the amended independent claims. In view of the amendments to the independent claims, and upon further search and consideration, the claims are found to overcome the cited art of record. Although the pertinent prior art of record, which is identified in the Examiner Notes below, have been found to teach or suggest the individual elements and limitations of the independent claims, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight. Moreover, combining the teachings of the cited prior art of record would result in a piecemeal prior art rejection of the independent claims. Accordingly, the §103 rejection of the claims have been withdrawn herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 1, 8, and 15 similarly recite “determining an target water usage based on the humidity information…”. The claims should be amended to recite “determining a target water usage based on the humidity information”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-7 are directed to a process (“method”), claims 8-14 are directed to a machine (“computing device”), and claims 15-20 are directed to a manufacture (“non-transitory storage medium”). Thus, claims 1-20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Collecting […] real-time water usage information corresponding to the target scenario, wherein the real-time water usage information comprises water flow and water quality parameters of each water pipe;
Preprocessing the real-time water usage information by performing data cleansing and denoising;
Determining a historical water usage mode corresponding to the target scenario based on fluctuation information of water usage and historical water quality information obtained from historical water usage information, the fluctuation information comprises changes in water usage in different seasons and changes in water usage during day and night;
Determining a water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode;
Determining target environment information corresponding to the target scenario in response that the water usage status is an abnormal water usage status […]; and
Generating a water usage strategy corresponding to the target scenario based on the target environment information, comprising: determining water usage time based on the temperature information; and generating the water usage strategy based on water usage time and the target water usage.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-7, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of observation, collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards “determining a historical water usage mode” recite concepts of mathematical calculations – which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include “a plurality of flow monitoring sensors installed in water pipes of a target scenario and a plurality of water quality monitoring sensors installed in the water pipes”, and “wherein the target environment information comprises temperature information, humidity information, and rainfall information obtained from a plurality of environmental monitoring sensors”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 8, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Collect […] real-time water usage information corresponding to the target scenario, wherein the real-time water usage information comprises water flow and water quality parameters of each water pipe;
Preprocess the real-time water usage information by performing data cleaning and denoising;
Determine a historical water usage mode corresponding to the target scenario based on fluctuation information of water usage and historical water quality information obtained from historical water usage information, the fluctuation information comprises changes in water usage in different seasons and changes in water usage during day and night;
Determine a water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode;
Determine target environment information corresponding to the target scenario in response that the water usage status is an abnormal water usage status, […]; and
Generate a water usage strategy corresponding to the target scenario based on the target environment information, comprising: determining water usage time based on the temperature information; and generating the water usage strategy based on water usage time and the target water usage.
Therefore, claims 8 and 9-14, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations of claim 7 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of observation, collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards “determin[ing] a historical water usage mode” recite concepts of mathematical calculations – which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include “at least one controller”, “a storage device, being stored with a computer program, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” perform the limitations of the claim, “a plurality of flow monitoring sensors installed in water pipes of a target scenario and a plurality of water quality monitoring sensors installed in the water pipes”, and “wherein the target environment information comprises temperature information, humidity information, and rainfall information obtained from a plurality of environmental monitoring sensors”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 15, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Collecting […] real-time water usage information corresponding to the target scenario, wherein the real-time water usage information comprises water flow and water quality parameters of each water pipe;
Preprocessing the real-time water usage information by performing data cleansing and denoising;
Determining a historical water usage mode corresponding to the target scenario based on fluctuation information of water usage and historical water quality information obtained from historical water usage information, the fluctuation information comprises changes in water usage in different seasons and changes in water usage during day and night;
Determining a water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode;
Determining target environment information corresponding to the target scenario in response that the water usage status is an abnormal water usage status […]; and
Generating a water usage strategy corresponding to the target scenario based on the target environment information, comprising: determining water usage time based on the temperature information; and generating the water usage strategy based on water usage time and the target water usage.
Therefore, claims 15 and 16-20, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations of claim 7 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of observation, collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations directed towards “determining a historical water usage mode” recite concepts of mathematical calculations – which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “non-transitory storage medium, being stored with a computer program, which when executed by a controller of a computer device, a method for controlling water usage is implemented”, “a plurality of flow monitoring sensors installed in water pipes of a target scenario and a plurality of water quality monitoring sensors installed in the water pipes”, and “wherein the target environment information comprises temperature information, humidity information, and rainfall information obtained from a plurality of environmental monitoring sensors”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the plurality of flow monitoring sensors comprise an ultrasonic flow meter, a millimeter-wave radar flow meter, and a photoelectric flow meter, and the plurality of water quality monitoring sensors comprise a pH sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor, a turbidity sensor, and a conductivity sensor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the plurality of environmental monitoring sensors comprise a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, and a precipitation sensor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 4 further describes collecting information and analyzing information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“wherein determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode comprises: determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode using a preset detection model; or determining outlier information in the real-time water usage information based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode, and determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the outlier information; or predicting a water usage based on the historical water usage mode using a preset water usage prediction mode; determining a water usage difference between the predicted water usage and a water usage corresponding to the real- time water usage information; and determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the water usage difference”). Thus, claim 4 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 5 further describes collecting information, analyzing information, and exercising judgement in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“in response that the water usage status is the abnormal water usage status, determining a flow monitoring sensor corresponding to the abnormal water usage as a target flow monitoring sensor; determining a water pipe corresponding to the target flow monitoring sensor as an abnormal water pipe according to a preset correspondence between the target flow monitoring sensor and the abnormal water pipe; and determining an area where the abnormal water pipe is located as a water usage abnormal area of the target scenario”). Thus, claim 5 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 6 further describes collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“wherein after generating the water usage strategy, the method further comprises: collecting updated real-time water usage information corresponding to the target scenario; determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the updated real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode; and outputting an alert when the water usage status is the abnormal water usage status”). Thus, claim 6 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 7 further describes collecting information and analyzing information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“determining feedback information corresponding to the target scenario; and determining an abnormal water source corresponding to the target scenario based on the feedback information and the real-time water usage information”). Thus, claim 7 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 9 recites the same abstract idea as claim 8, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the plurality of flow monitoring sensors comprise an ultrasonic flow meter, a millimeter-wave radar flow meter, and a photoelectric flow meter, and the plurality of water quality monitoring sensors comprise a pH sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor, a turbidity sensor, and a conductivity sensor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 10 recites the same abstract idea as claim 8, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the plurality of environmental monitoring sensors comprise a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, and a precipitation sensor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 11 further describes collecting information and analyzing information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“wherein determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode comprises: determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode using a preset detection model; or determining outlier information in the real-time water usage information based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode, and determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the outlier information; or predicting a water usage based on the historical water usage mode using a preset water usage prediction mode; determining a water usage difference between the predicted water usage and a water usage corresponding to the real- time water usage information; and determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the water usage difference”). Thus, claim 11 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 8 from which the claim depends.
Claim 12 further describes collecting information, analyzing information, and exercising judgement in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“in response that the water usage status is the abnormal water usage status, determining a flow monitoring sensor corresponding to the abnormal water usage as a target flow monitoring sensor; determining a water pipe corresponding to the target flow monitoring sensor as an abnormal water pipe according to a preset correspondence between the target flow monitoring sensor and the abnormal water pipe; and determining an area where the abnormal water pipe is located as a water usage abnormal area of the target scenario”). Thus, claim 12 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 8 from which the claim depends.
Claim 13 further describes collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“collect updated real-time water usage information corresponding to the target scenario; determine the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the updated real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode; and output an alert when the water usage status is the abnormal water usage status”). Thus, claim 13 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 8 from which the claim depends.
Claim 14 further describes collecting information and analyzing information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“determining feedback information corresponding to the target scenario; and determining an abnormal water source corresponding to the target scenario based on the feedback information and the real-time water usage information”). Thus, claim 14 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 8 from which the claim depends.
Claim 16 recites the same abstract idea as claim 15, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the plurality of flow monitoring sensors comprise an ultrasonic flow meter, a millimeter-wave radar flow meter, and a photoelectric flow meter, and the plurality of water quality monitoring sensors comprise a pH sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor, a turbidity sensor, and a conductivity sensor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 17 recites the same abstract idea as claim 15, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the plurality of environmental monitoring sensors comprise a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, and a precipitation sensor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 18 further describes collecting information and analyzing information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“wherein determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode comprises determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode using a preset detection model; or determining outlier information in the real-time water usage information based on the real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode, and determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the outlier information; or predicting a water usage based on the historical water usage mode using a preset water usage prediction mode; determining a water usage difference between the predicted water usage and a water usage corresponding to the real- time water usage information; and determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the water usage difference”). Thus, claim 18 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 15 from which the claim depends.
Claim 19 further describes collecting information, analyzing information, and exercising judgement in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“in response that the water usage status is the abnormal water usage status, determining a flow monitoring sensor corresponding to the abnormal water usage as a target flow monitoring sensor; determining a water pipe corresponding to the target flow monitoring sensor as an abnormal water pipe according to a preset correspondence between the target flow monitoring sensor and the abnormal water pipe; and determining an area where the abnormal water pipe is located as a water usage abnormal area of the target scenario”). Thus, claim 19 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 15 from which the claim depends.
Claim 20 further describes collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work (“wherein after generating the water usage strategy, the method further comprises: collecting updated real-time water usage information corresponding to the target scenario; determining the water usage status corresponding to the target scenario based on the updated real-time water usage information and the historical water usage mode; and outputting an alert when the water usage status is the abnormal water usage status”). Thus, claim 6 merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 15 from which the claim depends.
Examiner Notes
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been found to overcome the cited art of record. Further, claims 2-5, and 8, by virtue of dependence, recite the same limitations as claims 1, 8, and 15 that overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 1, 8, and 15 as being found to overcome the cited art of record. Although the cited prior art of record has been found to teach or suggest the individual elements and limitations of these claims, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight. Moreover, combining the teachings of the cited prior art of record would result in a piecemeal prior art rejection of the independent claims.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Liu et al. CN119342077A;
Claudio et al. WO2020064607;
Dan et al. CN119273328A;
Yao et al. CN119130090A;
Kim U.S. Publication No. 2023/0135090A1;
Wen et al. CN119204697A;
Liu discloses a system configured to monitor water consumption data of an intelligent water meter, where the smart water meter comprises sensor module for collecting the water consumption data in real time. The system may perform water usage analysis on current water usage data and historical water usage data to determine whether a user has abnormal water usage when the current water consumption data exceeds a historical average level. Furthermore, the current and historical water usage data may be preprocessed by performing data cleaning, data standardization, and data alignment. Liu, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. In particular, Liu does not teach determining a historical water usage mode corresponding to a target scenario based on fluctuation information of water usage and historical water quality information obtained from historical water usage information, the fluctuation information comprising changes in water usage in different seasons and changes in water usage during day and night. Furthermore, Liu does not teach determining a water usage status based on the historical water usage mode, determining water usage time based on the temperature information, determining a target water usage based on humidity and rainfall information, and generating the strategy based on water usage time and target water usage.
Claudio discloses a computer implemented method for detecting fraud by a consumer in the consumption of utilities, such as water, when an abnormal event is detected. The method comprises detecting the abnormal event, obtaining consumption readings of the utility of the consumer, and generating a time-series forecasting model of the consumption based on seasonal data and weather data. Afterwards, a number of actions can be executed, such as cutting off supply of the utility to the consumer. Claudio, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. In particular, Claudio does not teach determining a historical water usage mode corresponding to a target scenario based on fluctuation information of water usage and historical water quality information obtained from historical water usage information, the fluctuation information comprising changes in water usage in different seasons and changes in water usage during day and night. Furthermore, Claudio does not teach determining a water usage status based on the historical water usage mode, determining water usage time based on the temperature information, determining a target water usage based on humidity and rainfall information, and generating the strategy based on water usage time and target water usage.
Dan discloses a system configured to obtain real-time weather data including temperature, humidity, and rainfall conditions. The system may predict water consumption in future time periods based on an analysis of the impacts of weather data on historical water consumption. Based on the water consumption prediction result, a start/stop time of water pump equipment may be adjusted to match predicted water consumption during peak water consumption periods. Dan, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. In particular, Dan does not teach determining a historical water usage mode corresponding to a target scenario based on fluctuation information of water usage and historical water quality information obtained from historical water usage information, the fluctuation information comprising changes in water usage in different seasons and changes in water usage during day and night. Furthermore, Dan does not teach determining a water usage status based on the historical water usage mode.
Yao discloses a water supply management system configured to obtain water consumption data of users and determine a water consumption behavior mode of the users. The system may adjust water supply to users according to cost requirements, resource allocation requirements, and water consumption levels of users. The system may further extract water usage patterns of users including daily/weekly/monthly usage, water usage periods (i.e., morning, noon, evening), seasonal variation, and water usage preferences (i.e., time of water usage, temperature, etc.). Yao, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. In particular, Yao does not teach determining a historical water usage mode corresponding to a target scenario based on historical water quality information obtained from historical water usage information. Furthermore, Yao does not teach determining a water usage status based on the historical water usage mode, determining water usage time based on the temperature information, determining a target water usage based on humidity and rainfall information, and generating the strategy based on water usage time and target water usage.
Kim discloses system and method for metering the amount of tap water usage using a water metering device including multiple measuring sensors. The system may acquire water quality data in real-time using the multiple sensors installed inside the water distribution pipes, where the water quality data is included in the amount of tap water usage. Furthermore, the system may record the average daily tap water usage and determine when the average water usage is out of a certain range in order to deliver a warning message. Kim, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. In particular, Kim does not teach determining a historical water usage mode corresponding to a target scenario based on fluctuation information of water usage, the fluctuation information comprising changes in water usage in different seasons and changes in water usage during day and night. Furthermore, Kim does not teach determining water usage time based on the temperature information, determining a target water usage based on humidity and rainfall information, and generating the strategy based on water usage time and target water usage.
Wen discloses a system comprising a smart water meter that regularly collects water use data including water consumption, water use time, and water quality parameters. Using the water use data, the system may calculate the average water consumption of a community or street. As such, sudden flow changes or water quality anomalies may be detected. The system may consider user’s historical data record, the rationality of water use patterns and temporal continuity data to detect outliers. Wen, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. In particular, Wen does not teach determining a historical water usage mode corresponding to a target scenario based on fluctuation information of water usage obtained from historical water usage information, the fluctuation information comprising changes in water usage in different seasons and changes in water usage during day and night. Furthermore, Wen does not teach determining a water usage status based on the historical water usage mode, determining water usage time based on the temperature information, determining a target water usage based on humidity and rainfall information, and generating the strategy based on water usage time and target water usage.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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 at (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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights