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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 23 December 2025. As directed by applicant, claims 1, 3, 10, 13, and 18 are amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. No claims are added. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
[Examiner’s Note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose that limitation.]
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7- 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Buescher (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0200168) in view of Phillips (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0013572).
Regarding claim 1, Buescher discloses an apparatus comprising:
a water heater (10) comprising a self-control system including an upper thermostat and a lower thermostat (226 and 228), operable to selectively direct power to an upper heating element and a lower heating element by mechanically responding to a temperature in the water heater (Buescher, ¶¶0053, 0089, 0090, 0091; in fig. 10A, 226 and 228, the “thermostats”, are depicted as switches, and ¶89 indicates that these thermistors are temperature controlled like the sensors of previous embodiments, and ¶0053 indicates that the sensors are able to toggle the upper and lower heating elements between the ON state and the OFF state, which is what the switch of the thermostat would mechanically do),
a relay system (Buescher, elements 56, 224, figs. 3A, 3B, 10A, 10B, “relay output and driver”) operably connected to selectively control availability of operational power and measurement power to a water heater, characterized by a plurality of states (Buescher, ¶¶100-109, describing different states of the two heaters being selectively on and off, thus describing a plurality of states);
an electric parameter measurement unit (EPMU) (Buescher, monitoring module 320 with current sensor 322) operably connected to detect a state of the plurality of states by measuring an electrical parameter corresponding to power delivered to the water heater;
a processor (logic device) (microcontroller core, 304 inside control module 204, figs. 3A, 3B, fig. 11) operably connected to the EPMU and the relay to be effective to control operation of the relay, based on a signal from the EPMU reflecting the state of the water heater (at least ¶106, 109, where the current sensor indicates usage and which heating element is energized, thus reflecting a state of the water heater).
Buescher does not disclose “wherein the lower heating element is triggered responsive to a first set point temperature higher than a second set point temperature that triggers the upper heating element.” However, Phillips, in his method for heating water with two heating elements, teaches wherein the lower heating element is triggered responsive to a first set point temperature (Phillips, ¶¶28-30, fig. 2, sensors 29,30, ¶¶28 and 29 describe how the upper and lower heaters are responsive to the temperature setpoints, and ¶30 describes that the setpoints may be different;). And although Phillips does not state explicitly that the lower setpoint is higher than the upper setpoint, just that they may be different (so presumably one is higher than the other). However, ¶23 of Phillips does teach that if hot water is taken from the top, and then cold water comes in from the bottom, the bottom heater is going to be activated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Buescher with the teachings of Phillips, to have the lower heating element is triggered responsive to a first set point temperature higher than a second set point temperature that triggers the upper heating element in order that the cold water that enters will be heated up more quickly by the lower heater, being at a higher temperature, in order to make more hot water available faster when some hot water was taken away already (taken from the hot top of the reservoir to be used).
Regarding claim 2, Buescher discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above and further discloses, an apparatus wherein:
the plurality of states includes an "off' state, a "lower on" state, and an "upper on" state (Buescher, ¶¶106-109, figs. 10A-10B, these are the states indicated by the upper heating element being energized, the lower heating element being energized, or no element being energized); and
the electrical parameter is selected from a current (Buescher, ¶107, current), voltage, power, capacitance, resistance and a combination of at least two thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches wherein the state is detected by at least one of a [power monitoring system] PMS (Buescher, monitoring current is indicative of power) and an [resistance measuring circuit] RMC measuring an electrical parameter reflecting the state of the water heater.
Regarding claim 7, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above and teaches discloses a device wherein the relay is a double throw relay (Buescher, ¶0099, “double throw relay”).
Regarding claim 8, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above and further teaches a device wherein the relay (226) is connected to an operating pole in each of a first throw position and second throw position whether connected to power or not.
Regarding claim 9, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above and further teaches a device comprising a PMS capable of monitoring power from a public utility grid and measuring the electric parameter corresponding to the water heater (Buescher, ¶¶85, 107) .
Regarding claim 10, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above and further teaches a device wherein power to the water heater is provided from the RMC, PMS, public power grid (Buescher, ¶0085) or a combination of at least two thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above and further teaches a device wherein the relay controls both electrical connectivity of the water heater to a source of power and to a device for measurement of parameters reflecting a state of the water heater (Buescher, ¶101, relay 224).
Regarding claim 13, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above and further teaches wherein power at any time is sent into the water heater substantially directly and exclusively from only one of 1) the PMS (¶85 for monitoring, ¶106 for the parameter), and 2) the RMC.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buescher (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0200168) in view of Phillips (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0013572), and further in view of Miller (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0116817) .
Regarding claim 3, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a device wherein: the relay is operably connected to one of a capacitor circuit (¶0015, When the relay is open, a DC voltage is generated across capacitor 504) , a triac circuit, and a resistance measurement circuit, but does not further teach the apparatus is configured to be capable of measuring the electric parameter when the water heater is in an off state;
However, Miller teaches the apparatus is configured to be capable of measuring the electric parameter when the water heater is in an off state (Miller, fig. 3, 0005,0032, detection even if there is no current flowing via a detector module that senses current, even if no current flows through element; signal indicates there is no current). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Buescher with the teachings of Millar, to measure the electric parameter, even in the off state, to make sure that that everything is working properly, and that there is no surge or malfunction (Miller, ¶25, even when there is supposed to be no current). This would then be continuous monitoring of the heating elements, whether or not current was going through them to make sure everything was in working order and all the relays are working properly.
Claim(s) 6, 12, 14- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buescher (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0200168) in view of Phillips (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0013572) and further in view of Dagan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0169960).
Regarding claim 6, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as above, but does not further teach, wherein detection is accomplished by detecting a singularity or discontinuity in the time derivative of the electrical parameter. However, Dagan teaches such a detection method (Dagan, ¶0024), and he does this through an RMC[resistance measuring circuit], which is recited in claim 5. While claim 5 claims the PMS and the RMC in the alternative, and Buescher has the PMS, for the purposes of this claim, an RMC of Dagan is combined with Buescher. The advantage would be to check the status of the boiler, if there is a disconnection in the infrastructure, or if the heating body is out of order, and here the discontinuity or singularity would be infinite resistance or no resistance depending on the status. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Buescher with the teachings of Dagan, to add metering a resistance of the circuit, in order to help determine disconnections in the infrastructure, or if the heating body is out of order, and here the discontinuity or singularity would be infinite resistance or no resistance depending on the status.
Regarding claim 12, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the apparatus includes connections between components thereof admitting only two options for power to the water heater comprising a trickle power incapable of operating the water heater, and operating power capable of heating water in the water heater. However, Dagan does teach with its RMC, one comprising a trickle power incapable of operating the water heater, and operating power capable of heating water in the water heater (¶0024, circuit voltage of between 3.3V to 12V; ¶0080, circuit check state). While Buescher has a current detector, for the purposes of this claim, an RMC of Dagan is combined with Buescher. The advantage would be to check the status of the boiler, if there is a disconnection in the infrastructure, or if the heating body is out of order, and here the test power would be “trickle power” not capable of activating the heater. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Buescher in view of Phillips, with the teachings of Dagan, to add the trickle power, in order to help determine disconnections in the infrastructure, checking the circuit, or if the heating body is out of order.
Regarding claim 14, Buescher in view of Phillips teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the relay is operably connected to provide two modes of operation including a first, operational power delivery mode, and a second, test power delivery, mode. However, Dagan teaches a device wherein the relay is operably connected to provide two modes of operation including a first, operational power delivery mode, and a second, test power delivery, mode (¶0024, circuit voltage of between 3.3V to 12V; ¶0080, circuit check state). While Buescher has a current detector, for the purposes of this claim, an RMC of Dagan is combined with Buescher. The advantage would be to check the status of the boiler, if there is a disconnection in the infrastructure, or if the heating body is out of order, and here the discontinuity or singularity would be infinite resistance or no resistance depending on the status. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Buescher in view of Phillips with the teachings of Dagan, to add the trickle power, in order to help determine disconnections in the infrastructure, checking the circuit, or if the heating body is out of order.
Regarding claim 15, Buescher in view of Phillips and Dagan teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the relay is configured to provide the two modes each individually and exclusively at any given time. However, Dagan does teach these modes (Dagan, ¶0080), and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have these two modes, so that, either the device is being powered, or it is being checked to make sure that it can be powered should the circumstances arise, if hot water needs to be drawn, meaning by otherwise doing a circuit check to make sure the circuit is properly working and all the heating elements are in proper working order.
Regarding claim 16, Buescher in view of Phillips and Dagan teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein the relay is configured to provide the two modes simultaneously. However, Dagan does teach these modes (Dagan, ¶0080), and it would have been obvious to have these modes work simultaneously, for instance if the power is energizing the upper heating element, and the circuit check is checking the lower heating element, or vice versa, so make sure the whole device is in proper working order should any configuration of heaters being energized be needed.
Regarding claim 17, Buescher in view of Phillips and Dagan teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, but does not further teach a device wherein: the relay is configured to provide two modes of operation, including 1) a power mode providing operational power and test power simultaneously to the water heater, 2) a test mode providing test power only to the water heater. However, Dagan teaches these modes, and it would be obvious to have them work simultaneously, for instance if the power is energizing the upper heating element, and the circuit check is checking the lower heating element, or vice versa, so make sure the whole device is in proper working order should any configuration of heaters being energized be needed, or to have the whole device being tested, so that when any element is turned on, it is sure to be in working order.
Regarding claim 18, Buescher discloses a method comprising:
providing a water heater comprising a self-control system including an upper thermostat (226) and a lower thermostat (228);
providing a controller (Buescher, 204), operable to connect to a water heater, and comprising a relay system (Buescher, 226, 224), (Buescher, 107-109, measuring current is monitoring power), and processor (Buescher, control module 12 has a processor ¶38), operably interconnected to selectively control availability of power directed to a water heater characterized by a plurality of states (Buescher, figs. 10A, 10B, ¶¶106-109);
switching, by the relay, operational power, capable of heating water in the water heater (switching, via 224, 226 and 228);
instructing, by the processor, the relay to disconnect the operational power to the water heater (the power gets alternatively disconnected);
instructing the relay, by at least one of the PMS, RMC, and processor, to provide operational power to the water heater (Buescher, ¶¶106-109, power to the upper or lower heater); and
selectively directing power to an upper heating element and a lower heating element of the water heater by mechanically responding to a temperature in the water heater (¶101),
Buescher does not disclose a resistance measuring circuit (RMC), nor
providing testing power to the water heater by at least one of the relay system, the PMS, and the RMC;
detecting, by the PMS a parameter reflecting the testing power and a response of the water heater to the testing power; and
determining, by the processor, a state of the water heater, based on a value of the parameter; and
wherein the lower heating element is triggered responsive to a first set point temperature higher than a second set point temperature that triggers the upper heating element.”
However, Dagan teaches an RMC (Dagan, ¶0024, circuit voltage of between 3.3V to 12V; ¶0080, circuit check state). And through this, it would be “providing testing power to the water heater by at least one of the relay system, the PMS, and the RMC”, and the PMS would detect any signal from the test, though it would not be capable of activating the heater, and then the processor would determine the status of the device, whether it is on or capable of being used based on both the PMS current detection and the RMC resistance detection. While Buescher has a current detector, for the purposes of this claim, an RMC of Dagan is combined with Buescher. The advantage would be to check the status of the boiler, if there is a disconnection in the infrastructure, or if the heating body is out of order, and here there would be a testing power. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Buescher with the teachings of Dagan, to add the trickle power, in order to help determine disconnections in the infrastructure, checking the circuit, or if the heating body is out of order and the status of all the heaters.
And while Buescher in view of Dagan teaches all the above limitations, it still does not teach wherein the lower heating element is triggered responsive to a first set point temperature higher than a second set point temperature that triggers the upper heating element.”
However, Phillips teaches wherein the lower heating element is triggered responsive to a first set point temperature (Phillips, ¶¶28-30, fig. 2, sensors 29,30, ¶¶28 and 29 describe how the upper and lower heaters are responsive to the temperature setpoints, and ¶30 describes that the setpoints may be different;). And although Phillips does not state explicitly that the lower setpoint is higher than the upper setpoint, just that they may be different (so presumably one is higher than the other). However, ¶23 of Phillips teaches that if hot water is taken from the top, and then cold water comes in from the bottom, the bottom heater is going to be activated. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Buescher with the teachings of Phillips, to have the lower heating element is triggered responsive to a first set point temperature higher than a second set point temperature that triggers the upper heating element in order that the cold water that enters will be heated up more quickly by the lower heater, being at a higher temperature, in order to make more hot water available faster when some hot water was taken away already (taken from the hot top of the reservoir to be used).
Regarding claim 19, Buescher in view of Phillips and Dagan teaches all the limitations of claim 18, as above, but does not further teach a method comprising switching, by the relay between an operational power mode passing operational power to the water heater and a testing power mode passing testing power, orders of magnitude less than the operational power through the relay to the water heater. However, Dagan does teach that the testing circuit is a low voltage DC circuit for the circuit check state while (Dagan, ¶¶0082,0109) the operating power of the AC power source is high power (2000 W, ¶0104). Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the testing power substantially lower than the power operational power, even by order s of magnitude, in order to jet be testing the circuit but to be sure not to activate any heater and it would also be obvious to have both these powers move through the relays, to test the different heating elements and the different parts of the circuit.
Regarding claim 20, Buescher in view of Phillips and Dagan teaches all the limitations of claim 18, as above, and further teaches a method comprising providing the operational power from the PMS, and the testing power from the RMC (PMS from Buescher provides the operational power, and the RMC, combined from Dagan, uses a testing power, and this is all in the previous combination).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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 LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights