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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: element 195. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2 element 225; Fig. 5A element 519, 555, 557; Fig. 6 element 645. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 12 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 12, it recites the limitation “iron content may comprise” which contains the language that suggests or makes optional. Because it does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure, and it does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, no patentable weight is given.
As per Claim 18=9, it recites the limitation “the water treatment system to satisfy electrical and mechanical requirements” which is unclear what the limitation refers as “satisfy” does not set a range.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
4. Claim 11 is 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.
As per Claim 11, the claim recites “calculating a compensated metal value … and generating the water treatment recommendation responsive to a determination that the compensated hardness value is within a predetermined compensated hardness range.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the compensated hardness value” because claim 11 calculates a compensated metal value, not a compensated hardness value. It is unclear whether the recommendation is generated responsive to the compensated metal value the claim calculates or to a compensated hardness value the claim does not calculate; the metes and bounds of the claim are therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC section 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1, 5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0414802 A1), in view of Washington State Department of Health (“Water System Design Manual”) (“DOH”), and further in view of Whalen (US 2020/0331783 A1).
As per Claim 1, Kim teaches a computer-implemented method of designing a water treatment system at a premises (Fig. 1, [0015] “capable of combining a plurality of treatment modules to design a process configuration that matches target water quality and treatment capacity”), the method comprising:
using a computer, inputting the following data ([0017], [0065]-[0066] “the information related to the properties of wastewater may be directly input by a designer of the water and wastewater treatment device, or database analysis data or information stored”); and
responsive to the generated water treatment recommendation, designing the water treatment system ([0018], [0085]-[0086] “generate design drawings of the treatment modules according to each process configuration based on the mass balance and the design calculation”, “the design drawings generated using the water and wastewater treatment process simulation part 110 relate to the treatment module according to each process configuration 20 and are generated by a drawing generating part 122.”: the derived process configuration drives generation of the system design). In particular, Kim teaches an automated computer-implemented engine that derives a water-treatment process configuration from a treatment capacity and a design water quality and then generates the corresponding design drawings.
However, Kim fails to teach explicitly water usage, comprising a number of water outlets and a number of users on the premises; water source; water pressure; water pH; water hardness; water odor; metal content in the water, wherein the metal is selected from the group consisting of iron, ferrous iron, ferric iron, copper, manganese; responsive to a determination that the water source is municipal, chlorine content; using a computer, responsive to a determination that one or more of water usage, water source, water pressure, water pH, water hardness, water odor, metal content, and chlorine content are within respective predetermined ranges, generating a water treatment recommendation responsive to the input data.
DOH teaches water usage, comprising a number of water outlets and a number of users on the premises (pg. 41, section 3.6.1 “engineers can total the number of water supply fixtures in a building and convert it to an estimated peak water system demand”; pg. 31 “median indoor residential water use ranged from 54 to 64 gallons per capita per day for several communities throughout the United States”: totaled fixtures supply the number of water outlets and per-capita occupancy supplies the number of users as design inputs);
water pressure (pg. 50 “Design engineers must design water systems to provide at least 30 psi throughout the distribution system during peak hourly demand conditions”: minimum distribution pressure is a mandatory design input);
water pH (pg. 22-23 “the water system must include design and construction standards … The WSP standard specifications should include: … water quality concerns affecting treatment, such as coliform testing, chlorine residuals, pH, disinfection byproducts, and contact time requirements”: pH is among the site-specific water-quality concerns input to the design);
water hardness (pg. 407 “Testing for hardness will help determine whether elevated chloride concentrations resulted from hard water or possible seawater intrusion”: hardness is field-tested as a monitored quality input);
water odor (pg. 109 “Hydrogen sulfide can impart an objectionable odor at very low concentrations, which will affect consumer acceptance of the water”: objectionable hydrogen-sulfide odor is an input quality consideration); and
metal content in the water, wherein the metal is selected from the group consisting of iron, ferrous iron, ferric iron, copper, manganese (pg. 250-251, section 10.2.6.3 “iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) are the two most commonly found in untreated water sources. We recommend that water systems treat each source that exceeds the SMCL for Fe or Mn.”; pg. 281 “This additional monitoring may include additional rounds of tap sampling as required under the Lead and Copper Rule”: iron and manganese content are threshold-tested treatment drivers). In particular, DOH supplies the standard residential-system design procedures for estimating demand from fixture count and occupancy, designing to a minimum distribution pressure, and characterizing source water by pH, hardness, hydrogen-sulfide odor, and iron and manganese content and monitoring under the Lead and Copper Rules.
Kim and DOH are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, the design of premises water-treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate DOH into Kim’s invention to provide design requirements and design standards for ensuring safe and reliable drinking water sources and facilities, including the estimated peak water system demand and the water quality concerns affecting treatment that Kim’s design engine requires as inputs (DOH: section 1.1, pg. 1; section 3.6.1, pg. 23).
However, Kim as modified by DOH fails to teach explicitly water source; responsive to a determination that the water source is municipal, chlorine content; and using a computer, responsive to a determination that one or more of water usage, water source, water pressure, water pH, water hardness, water odor, metal content, and chlorine content are within respective predetermined ranges, generating a water treatment recommendation responsive to the input data.
Whalen teaches water source ([0034] “the industry is drinking water and the application is chlorinated municipal water supply”); and
responsive to a determination that the water source is municipal, chlorine content ([0034] “the industry is drinking water and the application is chlorinated municipal water supply”, “total chlorine concentration (which may be high or low)”: the identified municipal supply is an input datum and total chlorine concentration is a classified input on that chlorinated municipal supply); and
using a computer ([0044] “decision tree programming”), responsive to a determination that one or more of water usage, water source, water pressure, water pH, water hardness, water odor, metal content, and chlorine content are within respective predetermined ranges, generating a water treatment recommendation responsive to the input data ([0034], [0044] “the output number can then be mapped through an output function to one or more of a set of alerts or recommendations”: each input meter is classified against its range and the rule output is mapped to a treatment recommendation). In particular, Whalen teaches a decision-support rule structure that classifies drinking-water meters, including total chlorine concentration on a chlorinated municipal supply, and maps each rule output to a recommendation.
Kim, DOH, and Whalen are analogous art because they are all related to the computer-aided design of premises water-treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Whalen into Kim as modified by DOH’s invention to provide an output number mapped through an output function to one or more of a set of alerts or recommendations that keep the measured data within desired ranges, with thresholds adjusted when materially correlated with improved results (Whalen: [0003]-[004]).
As per Claim 5, Kim fails to teach explicitly further comprising installing the designed water treatment system.
DOH teaches further comprising installing the designed water treatment system (section 2.13, pgs. 24-25 “it certifies construction according to the DOH-approved design”: the approved designed system is constructed and installed, with construction completion certified).
As per Claim 13, Kim fails to teach explicitly further comprising, responsive to a determination that one or more of water usage, water source, water pressure, water pH, water hardness, metal content, chlorine content, and water odor are outside of respective predetermined ranges, altering the water treatment recommendation.
Whalen teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that one or more of water usage, water source, water pressure, water pH, water hardness, metal content, chlorine content, and water odor are outside of respective predetermined ranges, altering the water treatment recommendation ([0025] “the DSS 10 may provide an Alert suggesting a change in operation”: an out-of-range determination drives an alteration of the recommended operation).
As per Claim 14, Kim fails to teach explicitly wherein responsive to a determination that the water pressure is outside of a predetermined water pressure range, including, as part of the water treatment recommendation, that additional equipment be added to bring the water pressure within the predetermined water pressure range.
DOH teaches wherein responsive to a determination that the water pressure is outside of a predetermined water pressure range, including, as part of the water treatment recommendation, that additional equipment be added to bring the water pressure within the predetermined water pressure range (pg. 50 “Design engineers must design water systems to provide at least 30 psi throughout the distribution system during peak hourly demand conditions”; pg 210-211, section 8.4 “Existing water systems may need to install individual service booster pumps to meet minimum pressure requirements for specific connections”: an individual service booster pump is the additional equipment added to bring deficient pressure up to the mandatory minimum).
As per Claim 15, Kim fails to teach explicitly further comprising, responsive to a determination that the metal content is outside of a predetermined metal content range, including, as part of the water treatment recommendation, that water be treated at the water source to remediate the amount of metal content.
DOH teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that the metal content is outside of a predetermined metal content range, including, as part of the water treatment recommendation, that water be treated at the water source to remediate the amount of metal content (pg. 250, section 10.2.6.3 “We recommend that water systems treat each source that exceeds the SMCL for Fe or Mn”: treating the source when a metal exceeds its threshold remediates the metal content).
As per Claim 16, Kim fails to teach explicitly further comprising, responsive to a determination that the chlorine content is outside of a predetermined chlorine content range, including, as part of the water treatment recommendation, that water be treated at the water source to remediate the amount of chlorine content.
DOH teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that the chlorine content is outside of a predetermined chlorine content range, including, as part of the water treatment recommendation, that water be treated at the water source to remediate the amount of chlorine content (pg. 209 “if necessary, provide booster chlorination or other water quality adjustments”: adjusting the chlorine at the source when the residual is out of its range remediates the chlorine content).
6. Claims 2-4, 6-9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0414802 A1), in view of DOH and Whalen (US 2020/0331783 A1), and further in view of Klicpera (US 2019/0234786 A1).
Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 5 and 13-16 above.
As per Claim 2, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly wherein using the computer comprises using a handheld device that communicates with a central computing system to transmit the data and receive the water treatment recommendation.
Klicpera teaches wherein using the computer comprises using a handheld device that communicates with a central computing system to transmit the data and receive the water treatment recommendation ([0006] “The remote server and database can be used to support a computer portal that designated or registered users or owners can access water use data and/or leak detection information on a cell or smart phones,”). In particular, Klicpera teaches registered-user access to premises water data held at a remote server through a handheld smart phone or similar apparatuses.
Kim, DOH, Whalen, and Klicpera are analogous art because they are all related to the computer-aided design and monitoring of premises water-treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Klicpera into Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen’s invention to provide design requirements and design standards for ensuring safe and reliable drinking water sources and facilities, including the estimated peak water system demand and the water quality concerns affecting treatment that Kim’s design engine requires as inputs (DOH: section 1.1, pg. 1; section 3.6.1, pg. 23), to provide an output number mapped through an output function to one or more of a set of alerts or recommendations that keep the measured data within desired ranges, with thresholds adjusted when materially correlated with improved results (Whalen: [0044], [0003], [0034]) and to provide designated or registered users access to water use data on a cell or smart phones, computers, or similar apparatuses, resulting in improved efficiency, monitoring accuracy and economic benefit (Klicpera: [0004], [0054]).
As per Claim 3, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly wherein using the computer comprises using a handheld device to input data and generate the water treatment recommendation.
Klicpera teaches wherein using the computer comprises using a handheld device to input data and generate the water treatment recommendation ([0056] “viewed on a custom display/recorder screen 50, or cell or smart phones, computers, or similar apparatuses having an APP”: the data entry and result generation run in an APP on the handheld apparatuses).
As per Claim 4, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly wherein the handheld device generates a design for the water treatment system responsive to the generated water treatment recommendation.
Klicpera teaches wherein the handheld device generates a design for the water treatment system responsive to the generated water treatment recommendation ([0056] “quantitative analysis using software instructions, algorithms, and artificial intelligence to learn the daily, weekly or monthly water use patterns”: the handheld APP’s on-device analysis generates the design output responsive to the received recommendation).
As per Claim 6-8, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen teaches further comprising installing the designed water treatment system (DOH: section 2.13, pgs. 24-25 “it certifies construction according to the DOH-approved design”: the approved designed system is constructed and installed, with construction completion certified).
As per Claim 9, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly wherein the premises are selected from the group consisting of detached houses, townhouses, duplexes, condominiums, coops, apartment buildings, and office buildings.
Klicpera teaches wherein the premises are selected from the group consisting of detached houses, townhouses, duplexes, condominiums, coops, apartment buildings, and office buildings ([0031] “homes and yards, office buildings, commercial structures and grounds, farming lands, government or institutional facilities, multi-unit apartments, condominiums or townhomes”: the method is applied to the enumerated residential, multi-unit, and office-building premises types).
As per Claim 17, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that water odor is outside of a predetermined water odor range (Kim: [0017] “combined according to basic design information including a treatment capacity and design water quality of the water and wastewater treatment device”; DOH: pg. 23 “water quality concerns affecting treatment, such as coliform testing, chlorine residuals, pH, disinfection byproducts, and contact time requirements”, pg. 109 “Hydrogen sulfide can impart an objectionable odor at very low concentrations, which will affect consumer acceptance of the water”; Whalen: [0044] “number can then be mapped through an output function to one or more of a set of alerts or recommendations”).
Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly further comprising, responsive to a determination that water odor is outside of a predetermined water odor range, determining whether the water odor is present at all of the water outlets.
Klicpera teaches further comprising, responsive to a determination that water odor is outside of a predetermined water odor range, determining whether the water odor is present at all of the water outlets ([0004] “access and observe water use, leak conditions, and/or water quality parameters”; [0070] “a single set of localized sensors (flow rate sensor 105, optional pressure sensor 65, optional acoustic sensor, and/or optional temperature sensor 93) can be utilized”: per-outlet localized sensing of the monitored water-quality parameters determines whether a monitored condition is present at each outlet. Examiner’s Note – the monitored water quality parameters sensed by the single set of localized sensors at each outlet correspond to the determination of whether the “water odor” is present at all of the water outlets as claimed, the odor parameter being among the water-quality inputs the combination monitors per DOH and Whalen).
7. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0414802 A1), in view of DOH and Whalen (US 2020/0331783 A1), further in view of Klicpera (US 2019/0234786 A1), and further in view of Shaffer (US 10,062,261 B2).
Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 5 and 13-16 above.
Kim as modified by DOH, Whalen, and Klicpera teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 2-4, 6-9, and 17 above.
As per Claim 18, Kim as modified by DOH, Whalen, and Klicpera teaches further comprising, responsive to determining whether the water odor is not present at all of the water outlets (Kim: [0017]; DOH: pg. 23, pg 109; Whalen:[0044]; Klicpera: [0004], [0070] ).
However, Kim as modified by DOH, Whalen, and Klicpera fails to teach explicitly identifying one or more of portions of on-premises piping and water heating apparatus as a source of the water odor.
Shaffer teaches identifying one or more of portions of on-premises piping and water heating apparatus as a source of the water odor (Col. 1 lines 25-31 “As such, a sufficient amount of SO.sub.4, which can be naturally-occurring in a water supply, … from the water heater in the user's home… identify when naturally-occurring sulfates are present in the water heater tank such that the user can be alerted”; Col. 6 lines 35-52, Fig. 8: the water heater is identified as the source of an odor condition that is not present at every outlet). In particular, Shaffer teaches that a sulfate-driven condition arising at the home water heater is the source of objectionable water odor.
Kim, DOH, Whalen, Klicpera, and Shaffer are analogous art because they are all related to the detection and treatment of objectionable conditions in premises water.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Shaffer into Kim as modified by DOH, Whalen, and Klicpera’s invention to provide design requirements and design standards for ensuring safe and reliable drinking water sources and facilities, including the estimated peak water system demand and the water quality concerns affecting treatment that Kim’s design engine requires as inputs (DOH: section 1.1, pg. 1; section 3.6.1, pg. 23), to provide an output number mapped through an output function to one or more of a set of alerts or recommendations that keep the measured data within desired ranges, with thresholds adjusted when materially correlated with improved results (Whalen: [0044], [0003], [0034]) and to provide designated or registered users access to water use data on a cell or smart phones, computers, or similar apparatuses, resulting in improved efficiency, monitoring accuracy and economic benefit (Klicpera: [0004]; [0053]). Further the motivation is to provide an improved water heater appliance with a sulfate sensor and methods of alerting a consumer upon detection of sulfates, so the user can be alerted and then can take proactive steps to prevent H2S generation (Shaffer: Col. 1 lines 31-35 & 48-51).
5. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0414802 A1) in view of DOH and further in view of Whalen (US 2020/0331783 A1) and further in view of Klingensmith (US 2017/0362093 A1).
Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 5 and 13-16 above.
As per Claim 19, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly further comprising, responsive to installing the water treatment system, configuring the water treatment system to satisfy electrical and mechanical requirements for the installed water treatment system.
Klingensmith teaches further comprising, responsive to installing the water treatment system, configuring the water treatment system to satisfy electrical and mechanical requirements for the installed water treatment system ([0015]-[0016], Fig. 1-2: the installed treatment controller is configured after installation to meet its operating requirements). In particular, Klingensmith teaches that the installed softener controller must be correctly programmed after installation to avoid known misconfiguration.
Kim, DOH, Whalen, and Klingensmith are analogous art because they are all related to the design and configuration of premises water-treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Klingensmith into Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen’s invention to provide design requirements and design standards for ensuring safe and reliable drinking water sources and facilities, including the estimated peak water system demand and the water quality concerns affecting treatment that Kim’s design engine requires as inputs (DOH: section 1.1, pg. 1; section 3.6.1, pg. 23), to provide an output number mapped through an output function to one or more of a set of alerts or recommendations that keep the measured data within desired ranges, with thresholds adjusted when materially correlated with improved results (Whalen: [0003], [0034], [0044]). Further the motivation is to provide programming of the softener controllers that avoids the inefficiencies of misprogrammed controllers, including excessive salt use and increased sodium chloride pollution (Klingensmith: [0009]).
As per Claim 20, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly wherein configuring the water treatment system comprises programming valve head controls in the installed water treatment system, further comprising providing valve setting instructions, including instructions selected from the group consisting of regeneration cycle timing, brine draw timing, backwash timing, and rinse and refill timing.
Klingensmith teaches wherein configuring the water treatment system comprises programming valve head controls in the installed water treatment system, further comprising providing valve setting instructions, including instructions selected from the group consisting of regeneration cycle timing, brine draw timing, backwash timing, and rinse and refill timing ([0006] “the control systems usually use simple time-based (e.g., regenerate once a week on Tuesday) or flow-based (e.g., regenerate every 1000 gallons) schedules”: configuring comprises programming the control valves with regeneration-cycle timing instructions).
8. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0414802 A1) in view of DOH and further in view of Whalen (US 2020/0331783 A1) and further in view of Hellenbrand (ProMate-6.0 Consumer’s Manual).
Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 5 and 13-16 above.
As per Claim 10, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly further comprising, responsive to the amount of metal present in the water, calculating a compensated hardness value that is a weighted average of at least two values selected from the group consisting of hardness, iron content, and manganese content and generating the water treatment recommendation responsive to a determination that the compensated hardness value is within a predetermined compensated hardness range.
Hellenbrand teaches further comprising, responsive to the amount of metal present in the water, calculating a compensated hardness value that is a weighted average of at least two values selected from the group consisting of hardness, iron content, and manganese content and generating the water treatment recommendation responsive to a determination that the compensated hardness value is within a predetermined compensated hardness range (pg. 5 “Set the amount of total compensated hardness in grains … The grains per gallon should be increased if soluble iron needs to be reduced. Add 3 grains of hardness for each ppm of iron present”: a total compensated hardness combining measured hardness with a weighted iron term, used to set the regeneration capacity). In particular, Hellenbrand teaches setting a total compensated hardness value that adds a weighted iron contribution to the measured hardness and drives the softener regeneration from that combined value.
Kim, DOH, Whalen, and Hellenbrand are analogous art because they are all related to the design and sizing of premises water-treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Hellenbrand into Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen’s invention to provide design requirements and design standards for ensuring safe and reliable drinking water sources and facilities, including the estimated peak water system demand and the water quality concerns affecting treatment that Kim’s design engine requires as inputs (DOH: section 1.1, pg. 1; section 3.6.1, pg. 23), to provide an output number mapped through an output function to one or more of a set of alerts or recommendations that keep the measured data within desired ranges, with thresholds adjusted when materially correlated with improved results (Whalen: [0003], [0034], [0044]), and to provide a total compensated hardness that adds grains of hardness for each ppm of iron present, helping determine what type and size of water softener will most efficiently soften the water (Hellenbrand: pg. 5, pg. 3).
As per Claim 11, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly further comprising, responsive to the amount of metal present in the water, calculating a compensated metal value that is a weighted average of at least two values selected from the group consisting of pH, iron content, manganese content, and copper content, and generating the water treatment recommendation responsive to a determination that the compensated hardness value is within a predetermined compensated hardness range.
Hellenbrand teaches further comprising, responsive to the amount of metal present in the water, calculating a compensated metal value that is a weighted average of at least two values selected from the group consisting of pH, iron content, manganese content, and copper content (pg. 5 “Add 3 grains of hardness for each ppm of iron present”: the same weighted compensation Hellenbrand applies to iron, applied as a predictable use of a known technique to the recited pH, manganese, and copper values); and
generating the water treatment recommendation responsive to a determination that the compensated hardness value is within a predetermined compensated hardness range (pg. 5 “Set the amount of total compensated hardness in grains”: the recommended regeneration setting is generated from the compensated value being set within its range).
As per Claim 12, Kim as modified by DOH and Whalen fails to teach explicitly wherein the iron content may comprise one or more of elemental iron, ferric iron, or ferrous iron.
Hellenbrand teaches wherein the iron content may comprise one or more of elemental iron, ferric iron, or ferrous iron (pg. 4 “the ferrous iron will become oxidized to the ferric state and start to precipitate as a reddish brown floc”: the iron content comprises the ferrous and ferric (and resulting precipitated) forms of iron).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singhvi (US 6,408,227 B1) teaches computer-implemented prediction of water-treatment operational meters from influent water quality meters.
Ganzi (US 7,604,725 B2) teaches a residential point-of-entry water treatment system having sensors for pH, pressure, and source water characteristics.
Dvorak (University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension NebGuide G1714, “Drinking Water: Iron and Manganese” (Rev. May 2021)) teaches ion-exchange removal of iron and manganese from premises drinking water.
Feliers (US 8,449,766 B2) teaches capture of objectionable odor or taste at a water outlet on the user’s premises.
Rawson (US 6,814,872 B2) teaches controlling regeneration of a water softener based on a calculated total hardness value.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights