DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 32 – 44 are pending in the application with claims 1 – 31 being cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 32 – 37 and 39 – 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayleben et al. (US 2011/0110794 – herein after Mayleben) in view of Nirenberg, David B (US 2013/0140912 – herein after Nirenberg) and Burdi et al. (US 2011/0146399 – herein after Burdi).
In reference to claim 32, Mayleben teaches a pump (10, see fig. 1), comprising:
a capacitive liquid sensing device (54 or 54+42 within sensor unit 14; see figs. 1-3 and disclosure in ¶60-¶65) having pump intelligence with built-in programming (programmed controller, see ¶60 and fig. 2) configured to sense a level of a liquid collecting outside the pump and turn the pump ON/OFF for pumping the liquid (pump is turned ON/OFF based on upper limit 30 and lower limit 32 respectively); and
a pump body (pump housing of pump 12, see fig. 1) configured with a pump body part cavity (space/pump chamber)
having an impeller arranged therein (pump 12 has a pump housing having a space for an impeller; this being an inherent feature in view of Mayleben’s claim 10), having a bottom part with a pump inlet (pump 12 in fig. 1 has claimed features of “bottom part with a pump inlet”; it is discussed or visible in other embodiments of the pump system such as in fig. 9 or fig. 13; furthermore ¶109 discusses the presence of pump inlet) configured to receive the liquid being pumped by the impeller,
having a front side (in view of fig. 1: left side) of the pump with an outlet (outlet being a port to which discharge pipe 16 is connected) configured to provide the liquid being pumped by the impeller from the pump inlet, through the pump body part cavity, and to the outlet, and
having a back part (part constituted by sensor unit 14; see figs. 1-3) configured at a back side (in view of fig. 1: right side) of the pump on an opposite side (in view of fig. 1: →) of the outlet and configured to receive and contain the capacitive liquid sensing device (in view of figs. 2-3 and ¶61-¶62: the asserted back part is capable of receiving and containing components such as capacitor 33 (with sensor plates 38, 40 isolated by dielectric layer 71) and capacitive sensing integrated circuit 57 of the capacitive liquid sensing device 54), the back part (14) being separate from the pump body part cavity (space within pump housing of pump 12) [see ¶57: “this configuration enables the sensor unit 14 and the pump 12 to be constructed independent of each other”] and having a housing wall (wall as a whole constituted by various wall portions 35+39+41+47+43+45+37; see fig. 2 and ¶58) with an outside wall surface (of wall 45; wherein “outside wall surface” = left surface of wall 45 in view of fig. 2) and an outside sensing surface (“outside sensing surface” = region/portion in the asserted outside wall surface of wall 45 that is overlapped by sensor plates 38, 40 of the asserted capacitive liquid sensing device 54 because this region/portion allows capacitance to be measured), the capacitive liquid sensing device (54) being arranged or mounted inside the back part (14) in relation to the outside sensing surface (see ¶63, ¶65 and figs. 2-3) in order to allow the capacitive liquid sensing device to sense the level of the liquid collecting outside the pump and touching the outside sensing surface (as discussed in ¶56, ¶64-¶65);
the outside sensing surface having a predefined first level sensor (30, see fig. 2) opposite to the capacitive liquid sensing device (for instance, in view of fig. 2, “predetermined upper limit 30” is “opposite” to left side of component 40 of the capacitive liquid sensing device 54) and a predefined second level sensor (32, see fig. 2) opposite to the capacitive liquid sensing device (for instance, in view of fig. 2, “predetermined lower limit 32” is “opposite” to left side of component 40 of the capacitive liquid sensing device 54), the predefined first level sensor and the predefined second level sensor corresponding to the pump function ON/OFF respectively (as discussed in ¶56);
the outside sensing surface being a flat surface (part/portion of the asserted outside sensing surface in wall 45 being a flat surface, see fig. 2).
Mayleben remains silent on the pump wherein the pump intelligence with built-in programming (“programmed controller”) is “also configured to sense when the pump is running but not pumping the liquid when wet debris fouls the capacitive liquid sensing device, turn OFF the pump, and implement a periodic checking routine”.
However, Nirenberg teaches a similar pump wherein the controller (44) is configured to sense when the pump is running but not pumping the liquid when wet debris fouls the capacitive liquid sensing device, turn OFF the pump, and implement a periodic checking routine (see ¶27: “Because the current through the bilge pump 16 is proportional to the work being done by the bilge pump 16, the microcontroller 44 can determine if the bilge pump 16 is pumping water or 17 just spinning in air. It is noted that any other suitable pump value or variable can alternatively be monitored rather than the pump current. A threshold current value indicating the pumping of water is predetermined and programmed or embedded in the microcontroller 44. If the current through the bilge pump 16 is at or above the threshold current value, the microcontroller 44 permits the bilge pump 16 to continue to operate until the current through the bilge pump 16 drops below this threshold current value as the water 17 and/or other bilge fluid is fully evacuated from the bilge 12. If the bilge pump 16 is falsely triggered by the probe signal due to high humidity or residual moisture or contamination around the probes 22 as indicated by the current through the bilge pump 16 being below the threshold current value, the microcontroller 44 immediately shuts off the bilge pump 16 and the actual probe signal strength is averaged into the probe threshold signal level. This adjustment of the threshold signal level allows the probe threshold signal level to constantly follow or adjust for any environmental changes or help compensate for any dielectric build up due to dirty liquid coming in contact with the probes 22” and see ¶29: “From the foregoing disclosure it is apparent that by monitoring the current draw of the bilge pump 16, the bilge pump 16 operates only as long as it takes to completely evacuate the bilge 12 of water 17 and other bilge fluids.... It is also apparent that by keeping a running average of the probe signal strength, the bilge pump switch 10 has the ability to intelligently determine the state of the water level in the bilge 12. The signal strength can vary due to changing environmental conditions or the accumulation of dirt on the probes 22. Changing conditions and or dirty probes 22 can result in damage to the bilge pump 16 by running it dry, or the probes 22 not triggering at all resulting in a sinking boat 14”).
Both references of Mayleben and Nirenberg teach a submersible pump that use a microprocessor/controller to manage a dual-sensor system (level sensor + current sensor) for pump control. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the pump intelligence with built-in programming (i.e. programmed controller) of Mayleben to sense when the pump is running but not pumping the liquid when wet debris fouls the capacitive liquid sensing device, turn OFF the pump, and implement a periodic checking routine as taught by Nirenberg for the purpose of preventing damage to the bilge/submersible pump, as recognized by Nirenberg (see ¶29).
Mayleben remains silent on the pump wherein “the outside sensing surface having back side pump ribs extending at least partially between the predefined first level sensor and the predefined second level sensor, the back side pump ribs configured to extend or project outwardly away from the outside wall surface, in order to prevent the wet debris from being stuck on the outside sensing surface, so as to reduce a malfunction of the pump due to the wet debris contacting the outside sensing surface” and wherein “the back side pump ribs being arranged on and projecting from the flat surface”.
However, Burdi teaches a similar pump comprising a liquid sensing device (¶37: 22 with 50+52+60+62 in sensor system 20) configured to sense a level of a liquid collecting outside the pump and turn the pump on/off for pumping the liquid (see ¶36); and a housing (¶37: fluid tight housing or container 24) configured to receive and contain therein the liquid sensing device, wherein the housing has a housing wall (wall of 24 seen in fig. 1 or fig. 2, left picture or see fig. A below: “housing wall” is labelled) with an outside wall surface [left side of the asserted housing wall in view of fig. A below (fig. 2, right picture)] with an outside sensing surface [this outside sensing surface is viewed as the region/portion in the asserted outside wall surface (region/portion parallel to “rectangular shaped border” as seen in fig. A below) that is overlapped by the shape of the liquid sensing device 20/22 because it is within this region/portion through which the electric fields generated by the electrodes 50, 52, 60, 62 (as discussed in ¶37) of the liquid sensing device 20 passes through], the outside sensing surface having back side pump ribs (27; in fig. 1) extending at least partially between a predefined first level sensor (predetermined upper level 16H; in fig. 1) and a predefined second level sensor (predetermined lower level 16L; in fig. 1); the back side pump ribs configured to extend or project outwardly away from the outside wall surface, in order to prevent wet debris from being stuck on the outside sensing surface, so as to reduce a malfunction of the pump due to the wet debris contacting the outside sensing surface (see ¶49; the outside surface with ribs is capable of having the claimed features: ribs 27 allow bilge debris to slough off and in view of fig. 5, allows the sensing device to sense the liquid level; thus reducing the malfunction of the pump); the outside sensing surface being a flat surface (as evident from fig. A below), and the back side pump ribs being arranged on and projecting from the flat surface (as evident from fig. A below or fig. 1 and in view of disclosure in ¶49).
PNG
media_image1.png
862
2298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited figs. 1 and 2 of Burdi to show claim interpretation.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the back side pump ribs as taught by Burdi on the flat outside sensing surface in the pump of Mayleben for the purpose of allowing bilge debris to slough off or away from housing as the fluid level falls during pumping, as recognized by Burdi (in ¶49).
In reference to claim 33, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs (of Burdi) are arranged on the flat surface (of Mayleben) and dimensioned so that there is a space to receive the liquid between adjacent back side pump ribs when the wet debris is stuck on, or in contact with, the backside pump ribs (in view of Burdi’s disclosure in ¶49).
In reference to claim 34, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein (see fig. 3 and ¶60 of Mayleben) the capacitive liquid sensing device (42+54) is a printed circuit board (42) having a capacitive sensing device (54=57+33).
In reference to claim 35, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs (of Burdi) are configured to provide heat resistance and structural rigidity to prevent deformation of the outside wall surface (of Mayleben) from thermal stress (Burdi’s ribs are capable of having the claimed features; similar arguments/remarks as made by the applicant on page 9 of the arguments dated 08/12/2022 applies herein as well for the modified Mayleben’s pump; first argument/reasoning by the applicant: the ribs provide heat resistance and structural rigidity to prevent deformation of the outside wall surface from thermal stress by drawing heat from the outside wall surface to surrounding water/liquid when the temperature of the surrounding water/liquid is cooler than the corresponding temperature of the outside wall surface of the housing of the pump; second argument/reasoning by the applicant: this cooler relation between the extension or projection of the ribs outwardly away from the outside wall surface of the housing (14) of the pump and the associated provisioning of the heat resistance and the structural rigidity will also more likely prevent deformation of the outside wall surface from any associated thermal stress, since a cooler outside wall surface of the housing is less likely to deform due to heat than a hotter outside wall surface of the housing).
In reference to claim 36, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs (of Burdi) include three back side pump ribs.
Mayleben, as modified, remains silent on the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs include five back side pump ribs.
Burdi further teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs include one or more back side pump ribs (see ¶49).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide five back side pump ribs in the modified pump of Mayleben and Burdi since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the number of back side pump ribs in the pump.
In reference to claim 37, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs (of Burdi) are arranged vertically in relation to a pump axis (in view of Burdi’s fig. 1 and ¶49 or in view of Mayleben’s fig. 1: pump axis is viewed as in vertical direction).
In reference to claim 39, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs (of Burdi) are symmetrically arranged (as seen in Burdi’s fig. 1) on the outside sensing surface (of Mayleben).
In reference to claim 40, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs (27; of Burdi) are of equal length in axial direction (see Burdi’s fig. 1).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the back side pump ribs include a shorter middle back side pump rib and longer outer back side pump ribs in the modified pump of Mayleben as long as the back side pump ribs effectively allow the bilge debris to slough off or away from the housing. Further, applicant in the instant application (see ¶51 of pg. pub of the instant application) has not disclosed that “shorter middle back side pump rib and longer outer back side pump ribs” provides unexpected results or solves a stated problem.
In reference to claim 41, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs (of Burdi) include three back side pump ribs.
Mayleben, as modified, remains silent on the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs include seven back side pump ribs.
Burdi further teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs include one or more back side pump ribs (see ¶49).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide seven back side pump ribs in the modified pump of Mayleben and Burdi since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the number of back side pump ribs in the pump.
In reference to claim 42, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the pump is a bilge pump for configuring in, and pumping the liquid from, a hull of a vessel, or a sump pump for configuring in, and pumping the liquid from, a sump, or a shower drain pump for configuring in, and pumping the liquid from, a shower drain (for instance, modified pump of Mayleben is considered to be a sump pump in view of disclosure in ¶3 of Mayleben).
In reference to claim 43, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the capacitive liquid sensing device (54, see fig. 3 of Mayleben) includes a high capacitive liquid level sensor (44a) configured to sense a high liquid level and turn the pump ON (see Mayleben’s fig. 2 and ¶59; “44a” is considered to be a high capacitive liquid level sensor because it enables the detection electrode 40 to provide a corresponding output across its length; liquid near 44a generates capacitance that corresponds to high liquid level at or in proximate to predetermined upper limit 30; wherein the upper limit activates the pump as per ¶56), and includes a low capacitive liquid level sensor (44b) configured to sense a low liquid level and turn the pump OFF (see Mayleben’s fig. 2 and ¶59; “44b” is considered to be a low capacitive liquid level sensor because it enables the detection electrode 40 to provide a corresponding output across its length; liquid near 44b generates capacitance that corresponds to low liquid level at or in proximate to predetermined lower limit 32; wherein the lower limit deactivates the pump as per ¶56).
In reference to claim 44, Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the capacitive liquid sensing device is configured to implement the periodic checking routine to revert the pump to normal operation once the wet debris is removed [the periodic checking routine, once implemented (as taught by the combination discussed in claim 32 above), would inherently return the pump to normal operation once the fault condition (wet debris) is gone and the primary condition (liquid level) returns].
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayleben in view of Nirenberg and Burdi further in view of Daley et al. (US 2006/0260993 – herein after Daley).
Mayleben, as modified, teaches the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs (27; of Burdi) are arranged vertically in relation to a pump axis (in view of Burdi’s fig. 1 and ¶49 or in view of Mayleben’s fig. 1: pump axis is viewed as in vertical direction).
Mayleben, as modified, remains silent on the pump, wherein the back side pump ribs are arranged horizontally in relation to a pump axis.
However, Daley teaches the system (10, in fig. 1/2) with housing/tank (21) and pump (12), wherein a plurality of ribs (27) are provided on the housing (21) and are arranged horizontally (see ¶30 and figs. 1-2: ribs 27 are referred as “horizontal ribs”) in relation to a pump axis (in ↨ direction with respect to fig. 1/2).
Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ribs arranged horizontally in relation to the pump axis in the modified pump of Mayleben as long as the ribs effectively allow the bilge debris to slough off or away from the housing. Further, applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with “horizontal” ribs (for instance, see ¶52 of pg. pub of the instant application, where applicant states “However, the scope of the invention is not intended to be limited to the number of ribs 16, the placement/configuration of the ribs 16, the orientation (e.g., vertical or horizontal) of the ribs 16, the dimension of the ribs 16, etc.; and embodiments are envisioned, and the scope of the invention is intended to include, implementations having a different number of ribs, a different placement/configuration of the ribs, a different orientation (e.g., vertical or horizontal) of the ribs, a different dimension of the ribs, etc., than that shown and described herein”). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected modified Mayleben’s pump to perform equally well with claimed ribs arranged horizontally in relation to the pump axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's following arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments with respect to Nirenberg:
The Applicant contends Nirenberg does not teach sensing when a pump is “running but not pumping” due to wet debris fouling. However, Nirenberg explicitly states (see ¶27):
The microcontroller can determine if the pump is “pumping water or just spinning in air” by monitoring current.
The system recognizes if a pump is “falsely triggered… due to high humidity or residual moisture or contamination around the probes”.
When current falls below a threshold (indicating it is not moving fluid despite being ON), the microcontroller “immediately shuts off the bilge pump”.
The claimed limitation of sensing a pump running but not pumping when fouled by wet debris is the functional equivalent of Nirenberg’s detection of a pump “spinning in air” due to a “false trigger” from “contamination”.
Applicant argues Nirenberg lacks the claimed “pump intelligence”. On the contrary, Nirenberg teaches an intelligent, self-adjusting system (see ¶27-¶29):
The microcontroller “intelligently determine[s] the state of the water level” even when signal strength varies due to the “accumulation of dirt on the probes”.
The system “dynamically changes a threshold or trigger signal value…to help compensate for any dielectric build up due to dirty liquid”.
This specific intelligence is used to “prevent damage to the bilge pump” from running dry – the exact purpose stated in Applicant’s specification.
The Applicant argues that the references do not suggest a periodic checking routine for restarting.
Nirenberg teaches a microcontroller that “loops through a test routine” at predetermined intervals to check the status of the sensors. If the signal is below the threshold, it enters a “sleep state” until the next interval. This is the functional equivalent of the claimed “periodic checking routine”. Reverting to normal operation once a fault is cleared is an inherent result of a programmed control loop that continuously monitors for the primary condition (liquid level) once the fault condition (low current or fouled signal) is resolved.
The fact that Nirenberg uses “probes” rather than a “capacitive sensing device” is a distinction without a patentable difference in this context, as both serve as the liquid-sensing trigger for the same control logic. Nirenberg’s system is specifically designed to compensate for “dielectric build up,” which is the fundamental property managed by capacitive sensors.
Arguments with respect to Burdi:
The Applicant asserts that Burdi is only cited for pump ribs and does not address the “pump intelligence” deficiencies of the other references. A rejection under 35 USC 103 does not require a single reference to teach every element; rather it considers the combination of references.
The combination of Mayleben, Nirenberg, and Burdi addresses every element of independent claim 32. The modification of Mayleben’s controller to include Nirenberg’s current-sensing logic and Burdi’s physical debris-shedding ribs represents a predictable application of known techniques to improve pump reliability.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746