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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites that certain steps are taken if the pump “remains unpowered” as well as determining “if the pump should… remain unpowered”. These limitations are unclear as all determinations reference operating current which can only be measured if the pump is powered. It is unclear how the pump can “remain unpowered” if it is in a powered state. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret these limitations as “is rendered unpowered” and “be rendered unpowered” respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “repeating the steps whilst the condensate pump assembly remains operational”. Assuming that operational is synonymous with “powered”, it is unclear how the step of “rendering the pump unpowered” (claim 1) can be repeated while the pump is powered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,545,012 to Anastos et al. (Anastos hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Anastos teaches a method of controlling a condensate pump assembly which comprises a pump (12) and a controller (10) connected to the pump, the method comprising:
powering the pump (col. 2, ln. 39-52, “power to pump motor 12 supplied from power supply 15”);
measuring a current value (at 16) drawn by the pump;
comparing the measured current value (at 52) to a predetermined threshold current (“Low Window Reference”) value stored (in analog fashion) in the controller; and
controlling the pump to be powered to operate in a condensate pumping mode if the measured current value exceeds the predetermined threshold current value (col. 5, ln. 17-30, “a high level, when the system is operating at full power at any time when comparator 52 and liquid detector 24 determine that substantial water is present”); or rendering the pump unpowered if the measured current value is less than the predetermined threshold current value (col. 4, ln. 7-43, “cutting off current to motor 12”);
wherein the step of powering the pump comprises powering the pump to operate for a predetermined start-test period (e.g. one second, see col. 4, ln. 7-43);
wherein the step of measuring a current value comprises measuring a current value drawn by the pump during the start-test period (col. 3, ln. 3-8); and
wherein, if the measured current value is less than the predetermined threshold current value and the pump remains unpowered, then the method further comprises:
allowing a predetermined start test interval (e.g. 5 minutes, see col. 2, ln. 57-61) to elapse and then repeating the steps of powering the pump to operate for a predetermined start test period (one second);
measuring a current value (via 16) drawn by the pump during the start test period; and
comparing the measured current value (at 52) to a predetermined threshold current value stored in the controller to determine if the pump should be powered or remain unpowered.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood by the examiner, Anastos teaches that the entire process takes place while the pump assembly remains operational.
Regarding claim 5, Anastos teaches that the start test interval may be less than one minute (col. 2, ln. 57-61, “any desired period may be selected: less than one minute”).
Regarding claim 6, Anastos teaches a pulse width modulated voltage (provided by duty cycle generator 22 at 30% power, see Fig. 2A: “P.W.M. Duty Cycle Generator” in upper right corner).
Regarding claim 7, Anastos teaches measuring a current value (at 16) drawn by the pump during a condensate pumping mode and continuing to power the pump until the water is gone (col. 3, ln. 17-20).
Regarding claim 8, Anastos teaches a predetermined operating test interval (set by capacitor 99) to elapse and then repeating the method by allowing the liquid detector (24) to signal when liquid level is no longer substantial.
Regarding claim 9, Anastos teaches repeating the steps of claim 7 while in pumping mode.
Regarding claim 35, Anastos teaches a housing (vessel, see col. 1, ln. 22-24) having an upper portion and a pump (12) arranged to pump liquid from an inlet (e.g. within the vessel) to an outlet (e.g. outside of the vessel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-9 and 35 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. See discussion of Anastos above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 8 July 2026
Prosecution Insights