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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (CON of 14/627,181, filed 20 February 2015, abandoned 15 December 2020; which has PRO 61/942,419, filed 20 February 2014) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on 25 September 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 41 and 45-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDREE et al. (US 2006/0169646 A1) in view of PLUMMER et al. (US 2007/0090059 A1).
Regarding Claim 41, ANDREE discloses systems for treating water by regulating the operation of a treatment/disinfection system (i.e., [a] water quality monitoring system for monitoring water quality in relation to at least one contaminant; abstract, p0002). Sensors 114 and 116 provide measurement signals 120 to a control system 118 (i.e., a water quality module; FIG. 1). Controller 118 provides/transmits signals 126 to disinfecting systems 122 and 124 to regulate their activity (e.g., by actuating valves/pumps; p0047). The controller 118 may be implemented using a computer system 200 (i.e., a water quality interface control module (WQICM)) that includes one or more input devices 208 and one or more output devices 210 (e.g., a display screen or speaker; p0048, p0051; FIG. 2).
The controller 118 is configured to receive a plurality of measurement signals from at least one sensor 114, 116 to map a first set of process parameters/values and generate a first control signal and to map a second set of process parameters/values and generate a second signal; these signals are then used to regulate the treatment/disinfection system (p0035, 0036). The process parameters/values include oxidation-reduction potential and pH (p0043). At least one sensor includes an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) sensor disposed in the water and is configured to generate an ORP signal corresponding to a measured ORP of the water; and at least one sensor is a pH sensor disposed to measure and provide pH values of the water (i.e., having at least one sensor with a pH sensor and an oxygen reduction potential (ORP) sensor; the pH sensor sensing a pH of the water being monitored and providing pH sensor signaling containing information about the pH sensed; the ORP sensor sensing an ORP of the water being monitored and providing ORP sensor signaling containing information about the ORP sensed; p0042).
ANDREE further discloses that during operation, a user can input commands and data to control the computer system 200, e.g., to facilitate treatment, control addition of reactant species, regulate activity of one or more subsystems, and provide a desired condition of the fluid to be treated (p0055). A user is requested to input metrics pertaining to current, desired, and acceptable water quality, e.g., target pH, target contaminant level, target ORP, acceptable tolerances, and state, federal or other governmental mandated requirements (i.e., receives… user input signaling containing information about a user determined setpoint of a percentage change in values of pH versus ORP related to the at least one contaminant being monitored; p0056). When treatment has initiated, the system uses the sensors 114, 116 to measure ORP, pH, temperature, concentration of disinfecting species, flow rates, and fluid levels and relies on historical data to better operate the controller (i.e., receives the pH sensor signaling, the ORP sensor signaling; p0057).
These measured parameters are directed to one of the output devices 210 for printing and displaying on local or remote facilities over a wireless communication network (p0057). Measured values are compared with corresponding expected values or desired values (p0059) and subsequently, routines are developed to facilitate changes to the relevant process parameters (p0060; see FIG. 4 flowchart), e.g., “the routine can determine whether a change in the characteristic function is appropriate” (p0060), “the characteristic function can be directed to controlling pH” (p0062), and “sufficient characterization can be defined when a difference between the expected and measured values is within an acceptable, predetermined, or pre-selected tolerance or within an acceptable percentage for one or more corresponding parameters… within about 0.5% to about 5% of the expected value” (p0063). These routines are executed by sending an output control signal which are transmitted to the treatment subsystems 122, 124 to regulate water treatment to achieve the desired values, e.g., a target ORP level (p0066). Even further, such signals can be regulated by time-based steps to ensure control stability/steady state after a predetermined/preset period has passed (p0067) (i.e., provides WQICM signaling containing information about the water quality in relation to the at least one contaminant that depends on a comparison of a change sensed in real time in the values of the pH versus ORP related to the at least one contaminant being monitored and the percentage change outside the user determined setpoint, based upon the pH sensor signaling, the ORP sensor signaling and the user input signaling received).
ANDREE further discloses the computer system 200 (i.e., the WQICM) includes one or more input devices 208 and one or more output devices 210 (e.g., a display screen or speaker; i.e., wherein the WQICM comprises a user interface; p0048, p0051). A user inputs metrics pertaining to a desired and/or acceptable quality of water, including maximum and minimum allowed values for pH, ORP, and target concentrations of contaminants within mandated requirements/guidelines (p0056); such inputs include “acceptable percentage for one or more corresponding parameters” (i.e., that receives the user signaling containing information about the user determined setpoint of the pH versus ORP related to the at least one contaminant being monitored; p0063).
ANDREE is deficient in explicitly disclosing the WQICM comprises
“a user interface having a display unit configured to receive user inputs containing information about the user determined setpoint of the percentage change in the values of the pH versus ORP related to the at least one contaminant being monitored, provide the user input signaling, and display information about the water quality related to the at least one contaminant being monitored, including ranges or percentage changes between a baseline test and a subsequent test, or a visual rate of percentage change versus a discrete measurement, based upon the WQICM signaling provided;
or an alarm system configured to receive the WQICM signaling and provide an audio or visual alarm when the change sensed in real time is outside the user determined setpoint related to the at least one contaminant being monitored,
or both the user interface and the alarm system”.
PLUMMER discloses a system for monitoring a water network; the system includes a monitoring unit and a host computer and a processing subsystem that detects an abnormal condition via the monitoring unit and communicates the abnormal condition to the host computer (p0007). Monitoring unit 22 includes sensors S1-S4, which measures pH (S1) and ORP (S3); data collected via sensors S1 and S3 are retrieved by a processor 44 that analyzes and processes the data “to yield a useful actional output” (i.e., configured to receive the WQICM signaling; p0021; FIG. 2). Processor 44 further houses an embedded web page that defines acceptable limits associated with measured sensor data (p0044). Data from sensors S1 and S3 are analyzed for compliance with set limits (i.e., user determined setpoint related to the at least one contaminant being monitored), i.e., the processor 44 determines a “baseline” or normal range for each parameter and compares current values to this baseline (i.e., when the change sensed in real time…; p0046). PLUMMER reiterates that acceptable/normal ranges are established for the baseline and “[a] notification should occur if a parameter goes slightly out of its normal range… [or] significantly out of its normal range” (p0053). PLUMMER further discloses software on the host computer 24 “enunciate any alerts or alarms, calling the operators attention” (p0055).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An exemplary software window is shown in FIG. 7 wherein a display 90 shows information associated with monitoring unit 22; display 90 shows data collected and analyzed by the processor 44, and a color-coded display is associated with alerts (yellow) or alarms (red) (i.e., an alarm system configured to… provide an audio or visual alarm; p0061; FIG. 7). Advantageously, such a software display allows for non-technical users to easily understand the information such that the user can acknowledge the notifications and take action (p0061). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an alarm system configured to receive the WQICM signaling and provide an audio or visual alarm when the change sensed in real time is outside the user determined setpoint related to the at least one contaminant being monitored as taught by PLUMMER for the water quality monitoring system taught by ANDREE.
Regarding Claims 45 and 46, modified ANDREE makes obvious the water quality monitoring system of Claim 41. ANDREE further teaches in p0057/1-7 and FIG. 4 that in a single step 416, the plurality of sensors 114, 116 measure a plurality of parameters, including the ORP and pH of the water (i.e., wherein the values of the pH versus ORP are based upon a simultaneous measurement in real time of the pH and ORP (Claim 45)). ANDREE further discloses step 426 which advances the time point at which measurements are taken, prior to repeating the sensing step 416 and steps 418 and 420 where the current set of measured parameters is then compared with expected values (i.e., by comparing a baseline measurement of the values of the pH versus ORP related to the at least one contaminant being monitored to a real time measurement of the values of the pH versus ORP related to the at least one contaminant being monitored; p0059).
Further, as disclosed by PLUMMER, processor 44 further houses an embedded web page that defines acceptable limits associated with measured sensor data (p0044). Data from sensors S1 and S3 are analyzed for compliance with set limits, i.e., the processor 44 determines a “baseline” or normal range for each parameter and compares current values to this baseline (i.e., wherein the WQICM determines the change sensed by comparing a baseline measurement of the values of the pH versus ORP related to the at least one contaminant being monitored to a real time measurement of the values of the pH versus ORP related to the at least one contaminant being monitored; p0046).
Regarding Claim 47, modified ANDREE makes obvious the water quality monitoring system of Claim 46. The limitation “wherein the baseline measurement is a 3rd party baseline measurement, including a 3rd party laboratory-tested baseline measurement” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the structure being claimed and does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Regarding Claim 48, modified ANDREE makes obvious the water quality monitoring system of Claim 41. ANDREE further schematically shows in FIG. 1, sensors 114 and 116 provide measurement signals 120 to a control system 118 (i.e., the WQICM signaling contains in-line water treatment response signaling). Controller 118 provides/transmits signals 126 to disinfecting systems 122 and 124 to regulate their activity (e.g., by actuating valves/pumps) (i.e., the water quality monitoring system comprises an in-line water treatment module that receives the in-line water treatment response signaling; p0047). When treatment has initiated, the system uses the sensors 114, 116 to measure ORP, pH, temperature, concentration of disinfecting species, flow rates, and fluid levels and relies on historical data to better operate the controller and to add respective amounts of disinfecting species to meet the desired metrics for each measured parameter (i.e., provides one or more treatment materials to the water; p0057; p0070-0071).
Regarding Claim 49, modified ANDREE makes obvious the water quality monitoring system of Claim 41. ANDREE further schematically shows in FIG. 1, one or more of a plurality of sensors 114 and 116 provide measurement signals 120 regarding a number of parameters including the concentration of various species in the water (i.e., the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors; each of the plurality of sensors senses a respective one of the plurality of contaminants).
The limitation “the at least one contaminant comprises a plurality of contaminants” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the structure being claimed and does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Regarding Claims 50 and 51, modified ANDREE makes obvious the water quality monitoring system of Claim 41. The instant limitations are directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the structure being claimed and does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); MPEP §2115). The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115).
Regarding Claim 52, modified ANDREE makes obvious the water quality monitoring system of Claim 41. ANDREE further discloses the computer system 200 is connected to a communication network (0051) and that the one or more input devices 208 (which include sensors 114, 116), the one or more output devices 210, and all other components of the system are connected to the communication network operatively coupled via the computer system 200 such that the different components can communicate over “significant distance(s)” or that any subsystem can be located at a significant distance from other subsystems (p0052). ANDREE further explicitly describes such a network to be able to communicate via wired or wireless link between remotely located stations (i.e., a remote user interface; p0057). Such a communication network can also be integrated with the sensors 114, 116 and the treatment systems 122, 124 such that even if separated by a significant distance, data can be provided throughout the network/computer system 200 (i.e., wherein the water quality monitoring system comprises a remote user interface having a remote display unit that receives remote user inputs and provides the user input signaling, and that displays the change in relation to the user determined setpoint related to the at least one contaminant being monitored, based upon the WQICM signaling provided; p0052).
Additionally, PLUMMER further discloses that the host computer 24 sends data to remote computing systems to communicate with other devices and monitoring units 22 to provide local actions, such as alarms, alarm system control, and notifications/alerts (p0048). Even further, PLUMMER discloses that the data processor 44 utilizes embedded Internet web page that is remotely accessible and configurable to view current system status, continuous real time data analysis, and instant notification of events (i.e., wherein the water quality monitoring system comprises a remote user interface having a remote display unit that receives remote user inputs and provides user input signaling; p0044), which include comparing current readings with baseline readings/ranges (i.e., displays the change in relation to the user determined setpoint related to the at least one contaminant being monitored, based upon the WQICM signaling provided; p0046).
Response to Arguments
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief filed 25 September 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive; the rejections of Claim(s) 41 and 45-52 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by ANDREE et al. (US 2006/0169646 A1) have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made for Claim(s) 41 and 45-52 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDREE et al. (US 2006/0169646 A1) in view of PLUMMER et al. (US 2007/0090059 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777