Candidate arguments for counsel, ranked strongest-first — brainstorming inputs for counsel to evaluate, not a drafted response.
Strategy check: re-ranked from #9 — The current #1 for claim 11 (rank 5, Reece cascade) presupposes a claim-9-style dependency claim 11 does not currently have, and Reece supplies neural networks, so the §112b antecedent defect (rank 9) is the foundational and strongest lever for this claim.
wherein each of the first algorithm and second algorithm comprise a neural network
For counsel to weigh: claim 11 depends from claim 8, which introduces only 'a first algorithm'; the 'second algorithm' is introduced in claim 9, which is outside claim 11's dependency chain, so the recitation 'the ... second algorithm' lacks antecedent basis. This is a well-founded formal §112(b) defect (antecedent basis, MPEP § 2173.05(e)) and is best resolved by amendment — for example redirecting claim 11's dependency so that the 'second algorithm' has proper antecedent basis. Counsel should treat this as a correction rather than a contestable substantive rejection; there is no strong argument that the scope is clear as written.
- —Claim 8: 'training a first algorithm to classify measurement data as including a pattern' (introduces only the first algorithm).
- —Claim 9: 'training a second algorithm using measurement data that is classified ... by the first algorithm' (introduces the second algorithm).
- —Claim 11: 'wherein each of the first algorithm and second algorithm comprise a neural network.'
MPEP § 2173.05(e) — lack of antecedent basis is a proper §112(b) indefiniteness ground; the customary cure is amendment.
⚠ Risk There is no persuasive counterargument that 'second algorithm' has antecedent basis in claim 8; pressing the merits would waste the response. The practical path is an amendment concept placing claim 11 in a chain that first introduces the second algorithm. No prosecution-history estoppel concern beyond the ordinary effect of the amendment.
a leak prediction algorithm that has been trained to predict leaks based on experimental data obtained during fault scenarios that will cause a leak in future
For counsel to weigh: claim 18 was rejected under §102 over Abbas alone, yet the fully-grounded Abbas text describes training on historical known-leak pipe records, not on experimental data obtained during deliberately-introduced fault scenarios. A telling internal signal in the office action itself: the examiner drew the experimental/fault-scenario training concept from Wang (for claim 2) and from Reece (for claim 9) under §103, which suggests the examiner did not find that concept in Abbas standing alone. That is inconsistent with treating Abbas alone as anticipating the same experimental-fault-scenario training in claims 18 and 20. Caveat: the examiner's cited ¶¶0026, 0066, 0076 were not in the retrieved excerpt and should be pulled to verify.
- —Abbas Brief Summary: model trained on 'data for pipes ... and knowledge on whether those pipes leaked' (historical records).
- —OA1: for claim 2 the experimental fault-scenario data is supplied by Wang; for claim 9 by Reece — not attributed to Abbas.
- —OA3 claim chart: 'The experimental/fault-scenario training concept is the very teaching the examiner drew from Wang (claim 2) and Reece (claim 9) for other claims, suggesting Abbas alone may not supply it.'
MPEP § 2131 — §102 anticipation must rest on a single reference disclosing every element; drawing the same concept from other references under §103 undercuts a single-reference finding.
Risk The examiner may respond that Abbas's predictive framing (predicting first-time leaks) encompasses 'experimental data.' Counsel should confirm the cited paragraphs and be ready that the examiner could retreat to a §103 theory pairing Abbas with Wang/Reece. Prosecution-history caution: distinguishing on 'experimental data obtained during fault scenarios' narrows claim 18/20 scope.
Likely examiner response◐ survives — moderate
The examiner can argue that a §102 rejection of claim 18 and §103 rejections of claims 2 and 9 (drawing the fault-scenario concept from Wang and Reece) are NOT inconsistent — different claims recite different language, and claim 18's 'experimental data obtained during fault scenarios that will cause a leak in future' may be broader or differently worded than the claim-2/claim-9 limitations, such that Abbas alone reads on claim 18 while narrower dependents needed a secondary reference. The examiner would also note ¶¶0026, 0066, 0076 are the cited basis and were not in the excerpt, and that under BRI historical records of pipes that leaked can be characterized as data 'obtained during' leak-causing conditions.
How to adjust The internal-signal point (examiner reached to Wang/Reece for the same concept elsewhere) is persuasive rhetoric but not dispositive — an examiner can legitimately reject differently-worded claims under different statutes. Confirm ¶¶0026/0066/0076 first. Strengthen by doing a side-by-side of claim 18's actual language against claims 2 and 9 to show the fault-scenario/experimental-data concept is materially the same across all three (so the §103 reliance on Wang/Reece is a tacit acknowledgment the concept is not in Abbas), and by anchoring 'experimental data obtained during fault scenarios' to a construction that excludes passively-collected historical leak records.
training measurement data from sensors monitoring an environment in proximity to the pipework
For counsel to weigh: anticipation under §102 requires that the single reference disclose every limitation arranged as claimed (MPEP § 2131). In the fully-grounded Abbas text, the training input is per-pipe CHARACTERISTIC records — the Brief Summary describes training 'using data for pipes contained in a training dataset, which may contain information regarding the characteristics of various pipes (e.g., the dimensions of those pipes, the materials of those pipes, the age of those pipes, the locations of those pipes ...),' and claim 1 recites 'the first data items include characteristics of the respective pipes.' The available Abbas text does not describe environmental sensors, or sensor measurement data monitoring an environment in proximity to the pipework, as the training input. Because claims 3, 8, and 10 depend from claim 1, this candidate absence, if it holds, reaches all four claims. One caveat counsel must resolve first: the examiner's cited support (¶¶0067, 0111) was not present in the retrieved excerpt, so those specific paragraphs should be pulled and read before this element is treated as absent.
- —Abbas Brief Summary: 'The predictive model may be trained using data for pipes contained in a training dataset, which may contain information regarding the characteristics of various pipes (e.g., the dimensions of those pipes, the materials of those pipes, the age of those pipes, the locations of those pipes, and so forth) and knowledge on whether those pipes leaked.'
- —Abbas claim 1: 'the first data items include characteristics of the respective pipes.'
- —OA3 claim chart: Abbas record training input is 'pipe CHARACTERISTIC records ... the available fully-grounded text does not describe environmental sensors or sensor measurement data as the training input.'
MPEP § 2131 — §102 requires a single reference to disclose every element arranged as in the claim; an examiner cannot fill a gap by combining references.
⚠ Risk The examiner will likely point to ¶¶0067/0111 (not in the retrieved excerpt) as describing sensors monitoring the pipe and environment; counsel should pull those paragraphs before pressing this, because if they do describe environmental sensors the argument weakens. Prosecution-history caution: characterizing 'environmental sensors' as the distinguishing feature narrows claim scope to sensor-measurement training data and may create estoppel against a later broader reading.
Likely examiner response◐ survives — moderate
The examiner can point out that the rejection expressly relies on Abbas ¶¶0067 and 0111 — paragraphs that were NOT in the retrieved excerpt — for the sensor-measurement-input mapping, so the absence argument rests on an incomplete reading of the reference. The examiner would maintain that Abbas discloses a broad supervised-ML pipeline that, in the un-retrieved paragraphs, may describe sensor-sourced inputs, and that Abbas's listed learning techniques (random forest, neural networks, etc.) are agnostic to input source. Under BRI the examiner can also argue that 'training measurement data from sensors monitoring an environment in proximity to the pipework' is not so narrow that pipe-condition/attribute data logged over an area could not read on it, absent a claim definition confining 'environment' and 'measurement data.'
How to adjust This argument cannot be pressed until ¶¶0067 and 0111 (and 0167-0168) are pulled and read — if they disclose sensor measurement data as the training input, the missing-element premise collapses. Shore it up by (a) confirming from the full Abbas text that the training input is limited to pipe-characteristic/attribute records from a pipe database, and (b) if 'environment' and 'sensor measurement data' are being read broadly, tightening the specification-based construction that distinguishes environmental sensor streams from static pipe-attribute records. If the pulled paragraphs supply sensor data, pivot to amendment emphasizing the temporal/environmental sensing distinction.
labels indicating which periods of the training measurement data correspond with one or more fault scenarios selected to cause leaks in future
For counsel to weigh: the fully-grounded Abbas text labels each pipe with 'known leaks' — a binary record that a given pipe leaked or did not — rather than labels marking which time-periods of measurement data correspond to deliberately-introduced fault scenarios selected to cause leaks in future. Abbas claim 1 recites 'known leaks associated with respective pipes,' and the Detailed Description frames the labels as 'knowledge on whether those pipes leaked.' The claimed limitation requires temporal labeling tied to introduced fault scenarios, a concept the Abbas record does not appear to reach. This candidate absence, combined with the missing sensor-measurement input (rank 1), goes to the heart of the §102 mapping. Caveat: the examiner's cited ¶¶0037, 0040 were not in the retrieved excerpt and must be pulled to confirm.
- —Abbas claim 1: 'a training dataset including first data items and known leaks associated with respective pipes of a first plurality of pipes.'
- —Abbas Detailed Description: training data includes 'knowledge on whether those pipes leaked.'
- —OA3 claim chart: 'The fully-grounded Abbas text discloses per-pipe known leaks labels (a given pipe leaked or did not), not labels marking which time-periods of measurement data correspond to deliberately-introduced fault scenarios.'
MPEP § 2131 — every claim element, including the label limitation, must be present in the single reference; MPEP § 2112 — inherency requires necessity, not mere possibility.
Risk The examiner may argue that Abbas's 'causes of leaks' data (cited ¶¶0037, 0040) inherently teaches fault-scenario labeling; counsel should confirm those paragraphs do not describe deliberate fault introduction with periodic labels. Prosecution-history caution: emphasizing the 'periods ... fault scenarios selected to cause leaks' construction narrows scope and may estop a broader label reading later.
Likely examiner response◐ survives — moderate
The examiner can respond that Abbas ¶¶0037 and 0040 — again not in the retrieved excerpt — are the cited basis for the labeling limitation, and that under BRI a 'known leaks' label that records when a pipe failed can be characterized as indicating periods of data corresponding to leak conditions. The examiner may argue the claim does not require that the fault scenarios be 'deliberately introduced' in any structurally distinct way beyond a label tied to leak-causing conditions, and that the phrase 'selected to cause leaks in future' is aspirational/intended-use language that does not further limit the training-data structure Abbas discloses.
How to adjust Confirm ¶¶0037/0040 before relying on the absence. The distinguishing feature is temporal labeling of measurement-data periods tied to introduced fault scenarios — versus a per-pipe binary leaked/not-leaked record. Strengthen by anchoring 'labels indicating which periods' to a specification passage that requires time-indexed labeling of a measurement-data stream, so the examiner's binary-record reading is foreclosed under a proper construction. This argument is analytically paired with rank 1 (same sensor-measurement-input premise); if rank 1's premise survives the paragraph pull, this one likely does too, and vice versa.
training a second algorithm using measurement data that is classified as having a pattern by the first algorithm
For counsel to weigh: Reece is fully grounded, and its core approach is training a computer system on a first (no-leak) dataset and a second (simulated-leak) dataset and communicating which periods had leaks — a leak/no-leak determination. Reece claim 1 recites 'training the computer system to detect the leaks ... communicating ... that no leaks existed ... and ... that leaks existed.' The examiner's stated motivation — to 'predict what kind of leak will occur' via 'multiple classification models' — does not track Reece, whose stated framing is a leak/no-leak alarm rather than classifying leak types. Nor does the retrieved Reece text describe the claimed cascade in which a first algorithm classifies data as having a pattern and a second algorithm is then trained on that classified data. Counsel should press whether the examiner read a two-stage architecture and leak-type classification into Reece that its text does not support.
- —Reece claim 1: 'training the computer system to detect the leaks in the pipeline including communicating to the computer system that no leaks existed while the first set of data was acquired and communicating to the computer system that leaks existed while the second set of data was acquired.'
- —OA2: 'The invention's stated framing is detecting/alarming on leaks (a leak / no-leak determination), not classifying leak types.'
- —OA1: examiner motivation for claims 9/11 is 'to not only predict if a leak will occur but also predict what kind of leak will occur.'
MPEP § 2145 / § 2143.01 — a reference must be read as it actually teaches; a motivation resting on a teaching the reference does not contain is conclusory.
Risk The examiner may point to Reece ¶0064 (cited but within the truncated Detailed Description) as describing multiple classification models; counsel should pull ¶0064 and ¶0013 to confirm they do not disclose the claimed classify-then-train cascade before relying on this. Note claim 11's separate antecedent-basis defect (see the §112 candidate).
Likely examiner response◐ survives — moderate
As a §103 rejection, the examiner can argue Reece need not disclose the two-stage classify-then-train cascade or leak-type classification outright — Reece's training on a first (no-leak) dataset and a second (simulated-leak) dataset provides the building blocks, and combining/extending them to a multi-model or staged architecture to 'predict what kind of leak will occur' is a predictable use of a known technique (KSR (C)/(D)). The examiner would resist an attack on Reece in isolation where the rejection rests on a combination, and can characterize Reece's two-dataset framework as suggesting sequential/multi-model processing.
How to adjust Keep the attack on the combination and the articulated motivation, not on Reece alone (MPEP § 2145). The pressable gap: Reece's stated framing is a leak/no-leak alarm, and the claimed cascade requires a first algorithm to classify data as having a pattern and a second algorithm trained on that classified output — a specific architecture the retrieved Reece text does not describe. Press whether the examiner's 'multiple classification models' / leak-type motivation has any record support in Reece or is conclusory. Strengthen by mapping the claimed cascade element-by-element to show two static datasets are not the same as a trained-classifier feeding a second trainer; if Reece's Detailed Description (truncated in the record) is pulled and still lacks the cascade, that reinforces the gap.
the one or more fault scenarios comprises progressive decompression of a compression fitting
For counsel to weigh: Mezghani is fully grounded, and its disclosed embodiments form the pipe joint 'with solder or PVC cement,' explaining that 'Over a period of time, the seal may deteriorate so that the pipes leak.' That is seal deterioration of a soldered/cemented joint — not a compression fitting, and not a 'progressive decompression.' Whether solder/PVC-cement seal deterioration reads on 'progressive decompression of a compression fitting' is a genuine gap for counsel to press, because the examiner (¶0016) appears to have equated a deteriorating solder/cement seal with a decompressing compression fitting. The two are structurally and mechanically distinct fault mechanisms, which bears on both the mapping and the motivation to combine.
- —Mezghani Detailed Description: 'an exemplary pipe joint is formed between a pipe P2 having a fitting F and a second pipe P1 seated in the fitting F, with solder or PVC cement forming a seal in the fitting.'
- —Mezghani: 'Over a period of time, the seal may deteriorate so that the pipes leak.'
- —OA3 claim chart: 'a joint sealed with SOLDER or PVC CEMENT whose seal may deteriorate over time — not a compression fitting, and not a progressive decompression.'
MPEP § 2143.01 / § 2145 — the rejection must map the reference's actual teaching; a mischaracterized teaching cannot supply the missing limitation or a rational motivation to combine.
Risk The examiner may argue that seal deterioration and progressive decompression are functionally similar loss-of-seal mechanisms and that 'compression fitting' reads broadly. Counsel should be prepared to define 'compression fitting' and 'progressive decompression' by reference to the specification. Prosecution-history caution: a narrowing definition of these terms will bind in later interpretation.
Likely examiner response◐ survives — moderate
Because this is a §103 rejection (not §102), the examiner does not need Mezghani to disclose 'progressive decompression of a compression fitting' verbatim — only a rational reason a PHOSITA would arrive at it. The examiner can argue Mezghani's joint, where 'a first pipe is seated in a fitting of a second pipe,' is itself a fitting-type coupling, and that seal deterioration causing a gradual-onset leak is the same general class of progressive joint failure; substituting one known joint-failure fault mechanism for another to yield a predictable leak is a simple design choice / KSR (A)-(B) rationale. The examiner (¶0016) can maintain the mechanisms are close enough that the modification is predictable.
How to adjust Frame this as an obviousness attack, not a strict missing-element attack — the strongest form challenges the articulated reasoning: a solder/PVC-cement seal deteriorating is structurally and mechanically a different fault than a compression fitting losing compression, so counsel can press that the examiner substituted a different fault mechanism without a rational underpinning (MPEP § 2143.01) and possibly with hindsight. Confirm the ¶0016 mapping. If the specification defines 'compression fitting' and 'progressive decompression' as a specific mechanism absent from Mezghani, that construction is the lever; if the examiner has a plausible simple-substitution rationale, amending claim 4 to tie the fault scenario to compression-fitting-specific structure may be the cleaner path.
the sensors are distributed in different locations about the pipework / spaced apart by a distance of at least 50 centimeters (cm)
For counsel to weigh: Bond is fully grounded and is directed to an apparatus and method for deploying equipment into pressurized fluid mains using a piston-driven fluid housing and an anti-buckling winch — 'deployment mechanics, not ... leak detection algorithms or ... specifying inter-sensor spacing distances' (OA2). Under MPEP § 2141.01(a), counsel can test whether Bond is in the same field of endeavor as a computer-implemented leak-prediction training method and whether it is reasonably pertinent to the inventor's problem of arranging environmental sensors for leak prediction. Bond does mention that 'the equipment comprises a sensor, such as an acoustic sensor' and that 'a number of items of equipment each mounted at intervals along the carrier' may be used, so the examiner may argue pertinence; but the retrieved Bond text is about how to push equipment into a main, not where to space leak-detection sensors. Counsel should also confirm the examiner's cited ¶0091 (a specific 1-meter spacing) is actually in Bond and describes sensor spacing rather than deployment intervals.
- —OA2: Bond 'is directed to deployment mechanics, not to leak detection algorithms or to specifying inter-sensor spacing distances.'
- —Bond Description: 'the equipment comprises a sensor, such as an acoustic sensor ... It is possible to use a number of items of equipment each mounted at intervals along the length of the carrier.'
- —Bond abstract/claims: apparatus for 'deploying equipment into a fluid container' via a piston and guide means.
MPEP § 2141.01(a) — a reference supports §103 only if same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the inventor's problem.
Risk The examiner will likely argue Bond concerns water-main sensors and is at least reasonably pertinent to sensor placement, and that spacing 'items ... at intervals' meets the limitation. Counsel should verify ¶0091 exists and describes inter-sensor spacing; if it does, the non-analogous-art angle weakens and the argument becomes whether deployment intervals equate to the claimed sensor spacing.
Likely examiner response⚠ fragile — the comeback likely defeats it
The examiner has a real answer on both analogous-art prongs: Bond concerns deploying equipment into pressurized water mains and expressly states the deployed 'equipment comprises a sensor, such as an acoustic sensor' mounted 'at intervals along the carrier,' with cited ¶0091 reciting a specific spacing. The examiner can argue Bond is in the same field of endeavor (sensing within pipework/water mains) and, in any event, is reasonably pertinent to the inventor's problem of positioning/spacing leak-detection sensors about the pipework — the very problem claims 15 and 17 address (MPEP § 2141.01(a)). Non-analogous-art challenges are difficult where the reference explicitly discusses sensors placed at intervals in a main.
How to adjust Non-analogous-art is a hard win here because Bond's own text supplies sensors deployed at spaced intervals in a water main, giving the examiner a plausible field-of-endeavor AND reasonably-pertinent response. Do not lead with this. First confirm whether ¶0091 actually recites inter-sensor spacing for leak detection or merely deployment intervals for pushing equipment along a carrier — that factual distinction is the only strong lever. If ¶0091 describes deployment spacing rather than leak-detection sensor spacing, reframe as a mischaracterized-reference / no-teaching attack on the specific 50 cm limitation and its motivation, rather than a pure analogous-art argument; otherwise consider amending claims 15/17 toward the sensor-arrangement feature that Bond does not reach.
the sensors are placed within 30 centimeters (cm) of the pipework / at least some of the sensors are placed in an enclosed cavity with the pipework
For counsel to weigh: Davis is fully grounded at the claim/abstract level, but its Detailed Description 'is cut off well before the paragraph the examiner relies on' (¶0321), so the specific factual support for 'within 30 cm' and for an 'enclosed cavity' is not verifiable in the retrieved text. The retrieved Davis claims describe a containment apparatus 'at least partially encapsulating' the conduit with a sensor unit 'associated with the containment apparatus' — which may support an enclosed-cavity reading for claim 7, but the record does not show an express 30 cm distance for claim 6. Counsel should require the examiner to identify where Davis discloses the specific 30 cm proximity rather than assuming it from a figure, and weigh whether the motivation ('more accurately detect leaks with less interference') is articulated beyond a conclusory statement.
- —Davis claim 1: 'a containment apparatus sealingly attachable to, and at least partially encapsulating, the fluid conduit system ... a sensor unit associated with the containment apparatus.'
- —OA2: 'the description is cut off well before the paragraph the examiner relies on.'
- —OA1: examiner relies on Davis ¶0321 and 'fig. 1A-B show the sensor touching the pipe' for the 30 cm limitation.
MPEP § 2143.01 — the rejection must articulate factual support; a distance limitation cannot rest on an unverified paragraph or an inference from a figure.
Risk The examiner will likely reproduce ¶0321 and Fig. 1A-B showing a sensor touching the pipe, which would readily satisfy 'within 30 cm' and 'enclosed cavity.' This is a verify-the-support point more than a substantive distinction; counsel should confirm ¶0321 before over-investing.
so as to cause leaks at a period of time after the introduction of the one or more fault scenarios
For counsel to weigh: the examiner rejected 'period of time' as a relative term of indefinite scope. The correct examination lever is MPEP § 2173.02 / In re Packard / Ex parte Miyazaki — whether the term is unclear or amenable to more than one plausible construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation — not the litigation 'reasonable certainty' standard of Nautilus. Counsel can argue that, read in context, 'a period of time after the introduction of the one or more fault scenarios' simply denotes that leaks occur some elapsed time after the fault is introduced (i.e., the fault precedes the leak), which is a determinate temporal relationship rather than an indefinite degree term. Counsel should check the as-filed specification for any language giving temporal context; if the scope cannot be shown clear under BRI, an amendment clarifying the temporal relationship is the alternative path.
- —OA1 §112(b) rejection: 'The term period of time renders the cause of a leak indefinite because it is not clear as to when the leak can appear.'
- —Claim 2: 'so as to cause leaks at a period of time after the introduction of the one or more fault scenarios.'
MPEP § 2173.02 — during examination definiteness is tested under In re Packard (unclear term) / Ex parte Miyazaki (multiple plausible constructions), not the Nautilus litigation standard.
Risk The examiner may maintain that the term states no lower/upper temporal bound and remains indefinite. Cite § 2173.02 / In re Packard — do NOT cite Nautilus, which would invite correction. If the specification lacks supporting context, amendment is the more reliable route.
The method of claim 12 ... trained according to the method of claim 1
For counsel to weigh: the examiner rejected claim 13 as an improper multiple dependent claim referring to two claims in the conjunctive rather than the alternative (37 CFR 1.75(c) / § 112(e)). As-listed, claim 13 depends only on claim 12 and recites training 'according to ... claim 1,' so counsel should first confirm against the actual file wrapper whether claim 13 in fact refers to two claims conjunctively, since the pending claim listing shows a single dependency on claim 12. If the examiner's reading is correct, this is a formal defect curable by amendment to a proper single or alternative dependency; there is no substantive counterargument to the form requirement. Counsel should also note the examiner stated claim 13 'cannot be further examined on its merits,' so curing the form is necessary to obtain a merits examination.
- —OA1: claim 13 rejected under §112(e) because it 'refers to two claims in the conjunctive (claim 12 AND claim 1) rather than the alternative.'
- —Pending claim 13 listing: 'The method of claim 12, wherein the leak prediction algorithm has been trained according to the method of ... claim 1.'
MPEP § 608.01(n) / 37 CFR 1.75(c) — a multiple dependent claim must refer to preceding claims in the alternative; the form defect is cured by amendment.
Risk The form requirement is not contestable on the merits; the response should present an amendment concept. Confirm the actual filed claim text, since the pending listing appears to show only a single dependency on claim 12 — a discrepancy worth clarifying with the examiner.
the training measurement data is obtained during controlled experiments in which the one or more fault scenarios are introduced
For counsel to weigh (verify-first only): the Wang NPL reference was never retrieved into the record, so its text cannot be checked against the examiner's characterization that its section 2/section 5 experimental platform introduces faults and trains a prediction model on the resulting data. Because the reference text is unavailable, counsel cannot presently establish that any limitation is missing from Wang or that the examiner mischaracterized it; the only responsible posture is to obtain Wang and verify (a) that its experimental fault-introduction and training disclosure is as the examiner describes and (b) whether the articulated motivation ('to train the algorithm on data for leaks that might not have a lot of data') is supported. This candidate must rank below every argument resting on a fully-grounded reference.
- —Reference grounding: Wang not listed among grounded references (text not retrieved).
- —OA1: examiner relies on Wang 'page 3, section 2' and 'section 5' for controlled-experiment fault introduction and training.
MPEP § 2143 — the combination rationale requires articulated factual support; that support cannot be evaluated until the reference is in the record.Evidence needed: Obtain and read the Wang reference (page 3, sections 2 and 5) to confirm what its experimental platform and training disclosure actually teach before framing any distinction.
Risk Do not assert Wang lacks any teaching until the text is in hand — a negative assertion about an unread reference is unsupportable and risks being contradicted once Wang is produced. Ask the examiner to make Wang of record.
the sensors monitoring the environment comprise at least one of: a humidity sensor, a temperature sensor, and an atmospheric pressure sensor
For counsel to weigh (verify-first only): the reference cited as 'Kamkalow (WO9941580A1)' did not resolve to a retrievable document, so its content is known only through the examiner's characterization that it discloses temperature, humidity, and pressure sensors for pipe leak detection. Counsel cannot presently confirm that characterization, the reference's publication status/date, or its analogous-art posture. The responsible step is to obtain the actual document (and confirm the correct publication number) before either accepting the mapping to the environmental-sensor limitations of claims 5, 16, and 19 or arguing any distinction. This candidate ranks below all fully-grounded arguments.
- —Reference grounding: 'Kamkalow (WO9941580A1): UNVERIFIABLE — this number did not resolve to a document — verify it.'
- —OA1: examiner relies on 'Kamkalow, page 3, paragraph 4' for temperature, humidity and pressure sensors.
MPEP § 2143 / § 2141.01(a) — the reference must be identified, of record, and analogous; a rejection cannot rest on an unretrievable document without counsel's verification.Evidence needed: Locate the correct Kamkalow publication and obtain its text (page 3, paragraph 4) to confirm the disclosed sensors and its date/status before relying on any distinction.
Risk Do not argue the reference lacks a teaching before reading it. First confirm the correct publication number and obtain the document; if it cannot be located, counsel may request that the examiner provide a copy and a correct citation.