DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered. In accordance with that submission, the after final claim set filed 12/9/2025 is hereby entered and being examined accordingly. Amended Claims 21, 25, 26, 28, 32, 35, 37 and 39 have been noted in addition to canceled Claim 38. The amendment has overcome the specification objections previously set forth - those specification objections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 21-37 and 39-40 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a communication device” (Claim 21)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a communication device” (from Claim 21) is being interpreted as a device comprising a signal emitting beacon, and equivalents thereof
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-37 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 now recites the limitation “wherein the selected water temperature setting may exceed a maximum temperature threshold when the user device is within the predefined zone” which is not disclosed by the original disclosure. While the specification discloses that certain thresholds may be exceeded (such as the “lower safe temperature threshold”), such thresholds are not “maximum” thresholds. The specification fails to disclose any condition in which “a maximum temperature threshold” is exceeded. Moreover, it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. Therefore, the new limitation of “wherein the selected water temperature setting may exceed a maximum temperature threshold when the user device is within the predefined zone” constitutes new matter which was not disclosed by the original disclosure and Claim 21 consequently stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 22-31 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 21.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more outlets is permitted to deliver water at a temperature above the maximum temperature threshold” which is not disclosed by the original disclosure. While the specification discloses that certain thresholds may be exceeded (such as the “lower safe temperature threshold”), such thresholds are not “maximum” thresholds. The specification fails to disclose any condition in which a “maximum temperature threshold” is exceeded. Moreover, it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. Therefore, the new limitation of “wherein at least one of the one or more outlets is permitted to deliver water at a temperature above the maximum temperature threshold” constitutes new matter which was not disclosed by the original disclosure and Claim 25 consequently stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein the water heater has two or more outlets, such that at least one of the two or more outlets is configured to deliver water to at least one faucet at a maximum water temperature above maximum temperature threshold” which is not disclosed by the original disclosure. While the specification discloses that certain thresholds may be exceeded (such as the “lower safe temperature threshold”), such thresholds are not “maximum” thresholds. The specification fails to disclose any condition in which a “maximum temperature threshold” is exceeded. Moreover, it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. Therefore, the new limitation of “wherein the water heater has two or more outlets, such that at least one of the two or more outlets is configured to deliver water to at least one faucet at a maximum water temperature above maximum temperature threshold” constitutes new matter which was not disclosed by the original disclosure and Claim 28 consequently stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 32 now recites the limitation “wherein the application is configured to receive a determination that the at least one mobile device is within the predefined zone, and enable a user to select a new set point temperature setting exceeding the maximum temperature threshold in response to receiving said determination” which is not disclosed by the original disclosure. While the specification discloses that certain thresholds may be exceeded (such as the “lower safe temperature threshold”), such thresholds are not “maximum” thresholds. The specification fails to disclose any condition in which “a maximum temperature threshold” is exceeded. Moreover, it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. Therefore, the new limitation of “wherein the application is configured to receive a determination that the at least one mobile device is within the predefined zone, and enable a user to select a new set point temperature setting exceeding the maximum temperature threshold in response to receiving said determination” constitutes new matter which was not disclosed by the original disclosure and Claim 32 consequently stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 33-36 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 32.
Claim 37 now recites the limitation “wherein said user interface enables a user to select a water temperature setting for the output that is greater than a maximum temperature threshold when the mobile device is within the predefined zone” which is not disclosed by the original disclosure. While the specification discloses that certain thresholds may be exceeded (such as the “lower safe temperature threshold”), such thresholds are not “maximum” thresholds. The specification fails to disclose any condition in which “a maximum temperature threshold” is exceeded. Moreover, it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. Therefore, the new limitation of “wherein said user interface enables a user to select a water temperature setting for the output that is greater than a maximum temperature threshold when the mobile device is within the predefined zone” constitutes new matter which was not disclosed by the original disclosure and Claim 37 consequently stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 39-40 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 37.
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 21-37 and 39-40 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.
Claim 21 now recites the limitation “wherein the selected water temperature setting may exceed a maximum temperature threshold when the user device is within the predefined zone” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since a “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. If such a threshold was capable of being exceeded, it would not be a “maximum temperature threshold” as is claimed. Moreover, note that the specification fails to disclose such a limitation and accordingly fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 21 are consequently unclear.
Claims 22-31 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 21.
Claim 25 now recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more outlets is permitted to deliver water at a temperature above the maximum temperature threshold” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since a “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. If such a threshold was capable of being exceeded, it would not be a “maximum temperature threshold” as is claimed. Moreover, note that the specification fails to disclose such a limitation and accordingly fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 25 are consequently unclear.
Claim 28 now recites the limitation “wherein the water heater has two or more outlets, such that at least one of the two or more outlets is configured to deliver water to at least one faucet at a maximum water temperature above maximum temperature threshold” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since a “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. If such a threshold was capable of being exceeded, it would not be a “maximum temperature threshold” as is claimed. Moreover, note that the specification fails to disclose such a limitation and accordingly fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 28 are consequently unclear.
Claim 32 now recites the limitation “wherein the application is configured to receive a determination that the at least one mobile device is within the predefined zone, and enable a user to select a new set point temperature setting exceeding the maximum temperature threshold in response to receiving said determination” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since a “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. If such a threshold was capable of being exceeded, it would not be a “maximum temperature threshold” as is claimed. Moreover, note that the specification fails to disclose such a limitation and accordingly fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 32 are consequently unclear.
Claims 33-36 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 32.
Claim 37 now recites the limitation “wherein said user interface enables a user to select a water temperature setting for the output that is greater than a maximum temperature threshold when the mobile device is within the predefined zone” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear how a “maximum temperature threshold” can be exceeded since a “maximum temperature threshold” would include the maximum possible temperature. If such a threshold was capable of being exceeded, it would not be a “maximum temperature threshold” as is claimed. Moreover, note that the specification fails to disclose such a limitation and accordingly fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 32 are consequently unclear.
Claims 39-40 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 37.
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.
Claims 21-27, 30-37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boesveld et al. (US 2014/0316586 A1) (hereinafter “Boesveld”).
Regarding Claim 21, to the extent that Claim 21 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Boesveld teaches of a water heater system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a water heater (“HD” which may take the form of a “tap water heating device” - see at least [0058] and Fig. 1); and
a temperature control system (everything shown in Fig. 1 except for appliance “HD”) comprising:
a communication device (the “Wi-fi” device) (see at least [0043], [0058] and Fig. 1);
at least one mobile device (“mobile user device” shown as “UD” in Fig. 1) (see at least [0043], [0058] and Fig. 1);
a receiver (“thermostat” which is designated by “TH” as shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0043], [0058] and Fig. 1);
wherein the communication device is adapted to receive a communication from the at least one mobile device, to enable a determination of whether the at least one mobile device is within a predefined zone (“proximity zone”) (see at least [0040]-[0045], [0070] and Fig. 1);
wherein the at least one mobile device is configured to enable a user to select a water temperature setting (“temperature setpoint”/“temperature setting”) (See at least [0064]-[0067] - in regards to the event of “showering” it is disclosed that “The user may enter the event temperature in the form of a temperature setting” and that “Clock program setting conventionally requires a user to enter a time span and a temperature setpoint as desired during such time span” wherein such temperature setpoint can be any desired water temperature such as “15 degrees”, “20 degrees”, etc. Thus, the “temperature setpoint”/“temperature setting” constitutes a water temperature setting that is selectable by the user via the at least one mobile device as claimed.) in response to receiving said determination (only when the mobile device is within range within the predefined “proximity zone”, which is when said determination is received, is a user able to use the “software residing in the user device” of the mobile device to connect and select parameter settings (see at least [0032], [0041]-[0045], [0064]-[0068] and Fig. 1) - thus the at least one mobile device is accordingly configured to enable a user to select a water temperature setting (“temperature setting”) in response to receiving said determination as claimed since that is the time when said mobile device would be within range within the predefined “proximity zone” and connected) (see at least [0032], [0040]-[0045], [0064]-[0068], [0070] and Fig. 1);
wherein the at least one mobile device wirelessly communicates the water temperature setting selected by the user to the receiver (see at least [0041]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1), such that the receiver outputs a control signal to the water heater system to operate in accordance with the selected water temperature setting (the control signal that enables the water heater system to produce the desired water temperature setting (i.e., the user selected water temperature setting of e.g., “15 degrees”, “20 degrees”, etc.) - see at least [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1); and
wherein the selected water temperature setting (e.g., “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device”) may exceed a maximum temperature threshold (e.g., a maximum temperature threshold of “a first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device” wherein “Different comfort temperatures may be associated with different users, accordingly the thermostat may comprise a first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device and a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” and a “first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device”, which constitutes a “maximum temperature threshold”, is lower than that of “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” - see at least [0044]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1) when the user device is within the predefined zone (as is the case when it is “derived that the second mobile user device resides in the predetermined proximity zone” and the second comfort temperature setpoint, which is higher than the first comfort temperature setpoint, is entered) (see at least [0044]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 22, Boesveld also teaches that the control signal to the water heater is effective to deliver water at a selected temperature (the user selected water temperature setting of e.g., “15 degrees”, “20 degrees”, etc.) (see at least [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Boesveld also teaches that the water heater has one or more outlets (“tap” and/or “shower”) (see at least [0022], [0058], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1), and wherein the appliance system is configured to deliver heated water to the one or more outlets (see at least [0022], [0058], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 24, Boesveld also teaches that the communication device is located adjacent to the one or more outlets (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0022], [0058], [0064] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 25, to the extent that Claim 25 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Boesveld also teaches that at least one of the one or more outlets is permitted to deliver water at a temperature above the maximum temperature threshold (as is the case when “Different comfort temperatures may be associated with different users, accordingly the thermostat may comprise a first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device and a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” and a “first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device”, which constitutes a “maximum temperature threshold”, is lower than that of “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” - see at least [0044]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 26, Boesveld also teaches that at least one of the one or more outlets is not permitted to deliver water at a temperature above the maximum temperature threshold when the at least one mobile device is not within the predetermined zone (as is the case when “Different comfort temperatures may be associated with different users, accordingly the thermostat may comprise a first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device and a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” and a “first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device”, which constitutes a “predetermined safe temperature threshold”, is lower than that of “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” and when it is not “derived that the second mobile user device resides in the predetermined proximity zone”) (see at least [0044]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 27, Boesveld also teaches that the one or more outlets are configured to provide heated water to one or more faucets connected to the one or more outlets (Note that the limitation “configured to provide heated water to one or more faucets connected to the one or more outlets” constitutes an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill. In the instant case, the one or more outlets taught by Boesveld are capable of supplying water to a “tap” and/or “shower” and are therefore also capable of supplying water to one or more faucets (see at least [0022], [0058], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1). Thus, the apparatus taught by Boesveld is capable of performing the intended uses as claimed and accordingly meets the limitations of the claim.).
Regarding Claim 30, Boesveld also teaches of a software application (“software program running on the users mobile communication device”) configured to be executed on a processor of the at least one mobile device (as is evident from at least [0041]-[0045] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 31, Boesveld also teaches that the software application (“software program running on the users mobile communication device”) is configured to determine whether the at least one mobile device is within the predefined zone (“proximity zone”) (see at least [0041]-[0045] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 32, to the extent that Claim 32 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Boesveld teaches of a control system (everything shown in Fig. 1 except for appliance “HD”) for an appliance (“HD” which may take the form of a “tap water heating device” - see at least [0058] and Fig. 1), comprising:
a communication device (the “Wi-fi” device) (see at least [0043], [0058] and Fig. 1);
at least one mobile device (“mobile user device” shown as “UD” in Fig. 1) (see at least [0043], [0058] and Fig. 1);
an application (“software residing in the user device”) (see at least [0032], [0041]-[0045], [0067]-[0068] and Fig. 1);
a receiver (“thermostat” which is designated by “TH” as shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0043], [0058] and Fig. 1);
wherein the appliance has a default temperature setting (“absence temperature”) (see at least [0042]-[0045], [0070] and Fig. 1) and a set point temperature setting (e.g., a set point temperature setting that may be “associated with a first mobile user device” and “15 degrees Celsius”) (see at least [0027], [0042]-[0045], [0070] and Fig. 1), where the default temperature setting and the set point temperature setting are below a maximum temperature threshold (e.g., a maximum temperature threshold “associated with a first mobile user device” that may be “18 degrees Celsius”) (see at least [0027], [0042]-[0045], [0070] and Fig. 1),
wherein the communication device is adapted to receive a communication from the at least one mobile device, to enable a determination of whether the at least one mobile device is within a predefined zone (“proximity zone”) (see at least [0041]-[0045] and Fig. 1);
wherein the application is executable on a processor of the at least one mobile device (as is evident from at least [0041]-[0045] and Fig. 1), and wherein the application is configured to receive a determination that the at least one mobile device is within the predefined zone (“proximity zone”) (see at least [0041]-[0045] and Fig. 1), and enable a user to select a new set point temperature setting exceeding the maximum temperature threshold (e.g., “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” wherein the “second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” may be higher than the “first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device” and thus exceeding the maximum temperature threshold “associated with a first mobile user device”) (see at least [0042]-[0045], [0064]-[0067], [0070] and Fig. 1) in response to receiving said determination (as is the case when the “second mobile user device” is within the “proximity zone”) (see at least [0040]-[0045], [0064]-[0067], [0070] and Fig. 1);
wherein the mobile device wirelessly communicates the user selection to the receiver (see at least [0040]-[0045], [0066]-[0067], [0070] and Fig. 1);
wherein the receiver outputs a control signal to the appliance to deliver an output in accordance with the new set point temperature setting in response to receiving the user selection (thereby enabling the appliance to produce the desired temperature setting of the “second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device”) (see at least [0040]-[0045], [0066]-[0067], [0070] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 33, Boesveld also teaches that the communication device is located on or adjacent to the appliance (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0022], [0058], [0064] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 34, Boesveld also teaches that the control system is configured to passively control the new set point temperature setting based on the proximity of the mobile device to the communication device (thereby enabling the appliance to produce the desired temperature setting of the “second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” when the “second mobile user device” is within the “proximity zone”) (see at least [0040]-[0045], [0070] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 35, Boesveld also teaches that the control system is configured to prevent an output above the maximum temperature threshold when the mobile device is outside the predefined zone (as is the case when the “second mobile user device” is outside of the “proximity zone”) (see at least [0040]-[0045], [0070] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 36, Boesveld also teaches that the communication device is an emitting device configured to emit a signal to be detected by the at least one mobile device (as is evident from at least [0041]-[0045], [0058] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 37, to the extent that Claim 37 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Boesveld teaches of a software application (“software residing in the user device”) which when executed on a processor of a mobile device (see at least [0032], [0041]-[0045], [0067]-[0068] and Fig. 1) is operative to:
receive a communication from a mobile device (“mobile user device” shown as “UD” in Fig. 1) (see at least [0043], [0058] and Fig. 1) to determine whether said mobile device is located within a predefined zone (“proximity zone”) (see at least [0041]-[0045] and Fig. 1);
in response to determining that said mobile device is located within said predefined zone, allowing a launch of a user interface which enables a user to select a water temperature setting (“temperature setpoint”/“temperature setting”) (See at least [0064]-[0067] - in regards to the event of “showering” it is disclosed that “The user may enter the event temperature in the form of a temperature setting” and that “Clock program setting conventionally requires a user to enter a time span and a temperature setpoint as desired during such time span” wherein such temperature setpoint can be any desired water temperature such as “15 degrees”, “20 degrees”, etc. Thus, the “temperature setpoint”/“temperature setting” constitutes a water temperature setting that is selectable by the user as claimed.) for an output delivered by a water heater (“HD” which may take the form of a “tap water heating device” - see at least [0058] and Fig. 1) to a pre-selected output point (the selected temperature point of the “temperature setting” at the output location of the “shower”) within said predefined zone (which is where the “shower” is located and where said mobile device would be connected and able to facilitate user selection - see at least [0032], [0041]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1); and
wirelessly communicate the water temperature setting selected by the user to a receiver which is in communication with the water heater (“thermostat” which is designated by “TH” as shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0043], [0058], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1),
wherein said user interface enables a user to select a water temperature setting for the output (e.g., “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device”) that is greater than a maximum temperature threshold (e.g., a maximum temperature threshold of “a first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device” wherein “Different comfort temperatures may be associated with different users, accordingly the thermostat may comprise a first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device and a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” and a “first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device”, which constitutes a “maximum temperature threshold”, is lower than that of “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” - see at least [0044]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1) when the mobile device is within the predefined zone (as is the case when it is “derived that the second mobile user device resides in the predetermined proximity zone” and the second comfort temperature setpoint, which is higher than the first comfort temperature setpoint, is entered) (see at least [0044]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 39, Boesveld also teaches that in the absence of a user selection the output is below the maximum temperature threshold (the output of (at least) the “absence temperature” which is below the maximum temperature threshold of, at least, a “first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device”) (see at least [0042]-[0045], [0064]-[0067], [0070] and Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesveld.
Regarding Claim 28, Boesveld teaches the appliance system of Claim 27 (see the rejection for Claim 27) in addition to the water heater having at least one outlet (“tap” and/or “shower”) wherein the at least one outlet is configured to deliver water to at least one faucet (Note that the limitation “configured to deliver water to at least one faucet” constitutes an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill. In the instant case, the one or more outlets taught by Boesveld are capable of supplying water to a “tap” and/or “shower” and are therefore also capable of supplying water to at least one faucet (see at least [0022], [0058], [0064] and Fig. 1)) at a maximum water temperature (e.g., “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device”) above the maximum temperature threshold (as is the case when “Different comfort temperatures may be associated with different users, accordingly the thermostat may comprise a first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device and a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” and a “first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device”, which constitutes a “predetermined safe temperature threshold”, is lower than that of “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” and it is “derived that the second mobile user device resides in the predetermined proximity zone” and the second comfort temperature setpoint, which is higher than the first comfort temperature setpoint, is entered - see at least [0044]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1).
Boesveld fails to explicitly teach that the water heater has “two or more outlets”. However, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts that does not produce a new and unexpected result has “no patentable significance” (see below). Therefore, merely duplicating parts in the prior art in a way that that would not have produced a new and unexpected would have constituted an obvious modification.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In the instant case, adding an additional outlet onto the water heater that already has at least one outlet (“tap” and/or “shower”) (see at least [0022], [0058], [0064] and Fig. 1) would have produced the expected result of providing an additional outlet for additional access of water via a “tap” and/or “shower” (as is evident from at least [0022], [0058], [0064] and Fig. 1). Thus, it is clear that adding an additional outlet onto the water heater that already has at least one outlet would not have produced a new and unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the system taught by Boesveld by adding an additional outlet onto the water heater such that the water heater would have “two or more outlets” as claimed since such modification would have constituted an obvious duplication of parts which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesveld in view of Brenner et al. (US 2016/0187895 A1) (hereinafter “Brenner”).
Regarding Claim 29, Boesveld teaches the appliance system of Claim 27 (see the rejection for Claim 27) but fails to explicitly teach that at least one of the one or more outlets is fitted with a tempering valve. However, such configuration is known in the art.
Brenner discloses a relatable hot water supply device (Fig. 3a) that comprises one or more outlets (“port 326 which is connected to the faucet outlet such as a shower head etc.”) (see at least [0095] and Fig. 3a). Brenner teaches that at least one of the one or more outlets is fitted with a tempering valve (“mixing valve 310”) that “is configured to allow a user to adjust (via handle 311) the water temperature and the amount of mixed water exiting the faucet (by mixing hot/cold water and regulating the flow of mixed water)” (see at least [0093]-[0097] and Figs. 3a).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Boesveld by configuring the existing one or more outlets to be fitted with a tempering valve as is taught by Brenner. Doing so would have enabled a user to easily adjust water outlet temperature of the one or more outlets. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesveld in view of Halff (US 2016/0245534 A1).
Regarding Claim 40, Boesveld teaches the appliance system of Claim 37 (see the rejection for Claim 37) and that the water temperature setting selected by the user is wirelessly communicated via an emitted signal (the “wireless” signal - see at least [0043], [0058] and Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach that the emitted signal includes a Bluetooth signal, a Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) signal, an infra-red beam, a predetermined sound frequency pattern, or an ultra-sound signal. However, such configuration is known in the art.
Halff discloses a relatable hot water system (Fig. 2) that utilizes a “mobile device”/“smartphone” of a user with a software application disposed thereon (see at least [0040]-[0041], [0047] and Fig. 1). Halff teaches that a user may make a communication/selection with the system wirelessly via an emitted signal in the form of a “BLUETOOTH” signal (see [0041]) and that such a signal facilitates easy proximity detection without the need for a motion sensor (see at least [0041] and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the software/system taught by Boesveld by configuring the existing emitted signal to comprise a Bluetooth signal based on the teachings of Halff. Doing so would have facilitated easy proximity detection without the need for a motion sensor. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that the independent claims as amended are now distinguished from the previously relied upon prior art and contends that:
“While the Office Action alleges that ‘Boesveld explicitly discloses a ‘showering' application wherein water heated by the water heater may be set by a user remotely to any desired water temperature,’ Boesvled is silent regarding a maximum temperature threshold for the water temperature setting that can only be exceed when a user mobile device is within a predefined zone, i.e., within a certain predefined proximity to the water heater. Boesveld fails to provide any teaching or suggestion regarding any reason why such a functional capability would be desirable.
These arguments are not persuasive. As is presented above in this Office Action, each independent claim has introduced new 112(a) and 112(b) issues. Thus, each independent claim is now indefinite in scope and the new limitations that Applicant’s arguments relate to are not even present in the original disclosure. Nonetheless, to the extent that each independent claim is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Boesveld does teach the new limitations as claimed. For example, in Claim 21, Boesveld teaches that the selected water temperature setting (e.g., “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device”) may exceed a maximum temperature threshold (e.g., a maximum temperature threshold of “a first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device” wherein “Different comfort temperatures may be associated with different users, accordingly the thermostat may comprise a first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device and a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” and a “first comfort temperature setpoint associated with a first mobile user device”, which constitutes a “maximum temperature threshold”, is lower than that of “a second comfort temperature setpoint associated with a second mobile user device” - see at least [0044]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1) when the user device is within the predefined zone (as is the case when it is “derived that the second mobile user device resides in the predetermined proximity zone” and the second comfort temperature setpoint, which is higher than the first comfort temperature setpoint, is entered) (see at least [0044]-[0045], [0064]-[0067] and Fig. 1). Therefore, the claims are amended are still too broad to overcome the prior art of (at least) Boesveld and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive.
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims to obviate the new 112(a) and 112(b) rejections raised in this Office Action and to include additional structural elements and/or features and/or steps to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record. It is recommended that Applicant juxtapose Fig. 1 of the instant application with Fig. 1 of Boesveld and further amend the independent claims to include any elements and/or features and/or steps that are present in Fig. 1 of the instant application but not in Fig. 1 of Boesveld.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Imes et al. (2012/0046859 A1) and Gonia et al. (US 2017/0356669 A1) are considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 2/20/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762