DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 that are applied 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 1-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drewniak et al. (U.S. 2018/0186656 A1), hereinafter “Drewiak” in view of Clark (U.S. 2016/0200601 A1), hereinafter “Clark”.
PNG
media_image1.png
533
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 1, Drewiak teaches a residential water supplementation comprising a case (housing 112) configured to be positioned at a p.o.u. within a residence [Drewiak teaches an inlet 16 and outlet 26 (of figures 2 and 6) positionable within a slipstream and would have the ability to be placed whereever desired by the user and for any type of water including at a shower]; a water channel (between the inlet and outlet) for receiving and delivering a volume of water, wherein both the water input and the water output are configured to be coupled to pre-existing connectors of the shower; one or more cartridge recievers (that shown e.g. at 132c receiving the container cap 145c in figure 6); one or more injection nozzles in fluid communication with the water channel (e.g. the ends of injection tubes 144 communicating with the manifold 120); one or more pumps (132), wherein each pump is coupled to a cartridge recevier (e.g. between 145c and 132c), coupled to the injection nozzle (via tubes 144), operatable to extract a volume of chemistry from a cartridge 142 that is coupled to the cartridge receiver and inject a volume of chemistry into the volume of water within the water channel based on a selected treatment (e.g. based on the programs of controller 114); and processor 114 configured to cause the pumps to modify the volume of water within the channel based on a selected treatment [0053]. As for the new limitations in claim 1, parts (a) and (b), as shown in figure 2, Drewniak teaches a case 112 including a water input and a water outlet (16, 26) extending from respective side of the case. The Bulkhead connectors shown by Drewniak would include a threaded engagement. Threaded connections are ubiquitous and would have been obvious in view of the intended environment of use. As for the new limitations of claim 1, part (iv), Drewniak teaches limiting the number and/or volume of injections over a duration of time depending upon the selected program [0053].
As for the limitations “a processor configured to: (i) cause the one or more pumps to modify the volume of water within the water channel based on a selected treatment; (ii) receive a set of cartridge information from a cartridge reader of a cartridge receiver of the one or more cartridge receivers in response to a cartridge being coupled to the cartridge receiver; (iii) identify a chemistry associated with the cartridge based on the set of cartridge information; (iv) determine one or more use limitations associated with the chemistry based on the set of cartridge information and a configured set of use limitations; and (v) cause the one or more pumps to modify the volume of water based on the selected treatment and the one or more use limitations”:
Drewniak was expanded above and teaches a plurality of additive cartridges (containers 142) including labels [0055] providing information about the contents but doesn’t specify a cartridge reader for each cartridge receiver [as in claims 1 and 5]. However, such is taught by Clark.
Clark teaches a plurality of additive cartridges (208A-D) each including an RFID device, wherein the cartridges are received within cartridge receivers (204A-D) each including a reader (212A-D) corresponding to a respective RFID device (e.g. 0037 and figure 2). It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the cartridge readers and RFID tags of Clark in the invention of Drewniak, since Clark teaches the benefit of informing the user of the particular additive in each container 0037 and that can be communicated wirelessly [0064]. The modification would perfect Drewniak’s goal of adding ingredients based on water chemistry needs (abstract) and maintaining inventory [0071].
Upon modification of Drewniak with Clark, the added limitation are obvious: “a processor configured to: (i) cause the one or more pumps to modify the volume of water within the water channel based on a selected treatment (e.g. based on the programs of controller 114 and defined treatment objective); (ii) receive a set of cartridge information from a cartridge reader of a cartridge receiver of the one or more cartridge receivers in response to a cartridge being coupled to the cartridge receiver (e.g. readers 212A through 212D of Clark); (iii) identify a chemistry associated with the cartridge based on the set of cartridge information (see 0037 of Clark); (iv) determine one or more use limitations associated with the chemistry based on the set of cartridge information and a configured set of use limitations (the volume of additive available is a use limitation); and (v) cause the one or more pumps to modify the volume of water based on the selected treatment and the one or more use limitations (this step would have been obvious to effect the desired treatment) [as in claim 1].
As for claims 2-3, a user interface 152 is provide for manual entry for the selected treatment [0053] and to change treatment feed rates of cartridges [0015] or provide a visual alert if a cartridge is empty [0069].
As for claim 4, Drewniak also teaches a storage reservoir 120 and a transport pump (e.g. the submersible pump of 0048) operable to (have the ability to) transport a volume of water for a precedent poiunt of use to and from the storage reservoir [0048].
As for claim 18, Drewiak teaches the processor (controller) configured to determine a treatment basedupon a pre-configured treatment including two or more discretechemistry injection events performed by one or more pumps based upon duration of time since the volume of water began flowing through the water channel [0061-0063, and 0070 (sequential feeding)].
As for claim 19, the controller (processor) is in communication with a user device or remote server. See the last half of paragraph [0060].
As for claim 6, the RFID readers are based on a wireless signal.
As for claim 7, both Drewniak and Clark teach sending information regarding the dosing systems to a remote server. See paragraphs 0060 and 0076, respectively.
As for claim 8, Drewniak teaches customizing the dosing of water depending upon desired water chemistry (abstract) and dosing via pumps 132 such that preventing the pumps of additives not required for the particular dosing would have been obvious.
As for claim 17, it would have been obvious to send an alert to a user if a cartridge (e.g. of a particular additive not used in the system) has never been previously coupled to any cartridge receiver, since Drewniak teaches sending an alert when a (correct) treatment product has not been fed into the water system.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drewniak in view of Clark, as modified above and in further view of WO 2007/001488 A1, hereinafter “448”.
As for claims 10-11, The modified Drewniak teaches a pump alternative that can include a piston, wheel and crank pin (pinion) operated by a motor in the piston cap (a cylinder)[0051]. It is unclear if he teaches rotation in two directions. But such is made obvious by ‘448. As shown in e.g. figure 15, ‘448 teaches a cylinder having two valves at the inlet and outlet of a cylinder space 156. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the cylinder and two valves of ‘448 in the invention of the modified Drewniak since ‘448 teaches the benefit of pumping a predetermined amount to water that would require rotation of the pinion wheel on two directions to first pull the additive from the cartridge and through check valve 153 and then push the additive through the outlet check valve 158.
As for claim 12, it would have been obvious for the processor to move the piston the correct number times (steps) in order to dispense the desired amount (metering). As for claim 13, it would have been obvious for the diameter of the pinion to have a diameter sized to apply a sufficient amount of pressure to dispense in the water channel and exceed the pressure thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As shown in the included injection, primary reference Drewniak already teaches a water input/output extending from respective sides of the casing.
Applicant has added that the input and output are configured to be coupled to pre-existing threaded connectors of the shower. Having the claims are not in combination with a shower and threaded connectors are ubiquitous.
The processor being configured to determine use limitations, e.g. the number of injections over time is already included in his teaches of “to initiate feed of each treatment product into the water system at a preprogrammed time or in response to one or more measurements of the water, to feed an amount of treatment product over a period of time…”
Also, Drewniak is not limited to industrial water systems: “This invention relates to a system and method for controlling the treatment of water in a water system..” [0002]. Industrial process water is listed as an example only. However, showers or spray systems are conventional in many industrial processes.
It is pointed out that he also lists “boilers” as an example which is well-known to be used for heating water for a shower.
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 Mr. TERRY K CECIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1138. The examiner can normally be reached Normally 7:30-4:00p 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 repeated attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful (including leaving a voice message), the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on (571) 270-3240. 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.
/TERRY K CECIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779