CTFR 18/139,145 CTFR 88156 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “quick disconnect mechanism” in claim 3. configured to connect the hose to the port 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. In ¶0022 of the SPEC it states that examples of the quick disconnect mechanism include a threaded fitting, double lever mechanism, or a bayonet style connection. 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 § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2014/0202243 in view of DE 20 2020 105 706 U. Examiners Note: For the purposes of examining the instant application, the examiners submitted English translation of DE 20 2020 105 706 U, provided 12/05/2024 in the file wrapper, is referenced hereinafter . Regarding Claim 1 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 discloses the limitations: A pump system (the pump system is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising: a pump (the pump is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising: a pump housing (housing of pump 46 shown in Fig 2); a motor disposed within the pump housing (since the pump is disclosed as being electrically powered (¶0027) there is inherently an electric motor located within the housing of pump 46); the pump driven by the motor (the pump is inherently driven by the electric motor of pump 46); a sensor (sensor = float switch 50, Fig 2, ¶0026-¶0027) coupled to the pump housing (sensor 50 is coupled to the pump housing via elements 36, 38, 21, and 17 connected to the outlet of the pump in Fig 2), the sensor detecting a fluid level surrounding the pump housing (sensor 50 detects a second level of the water in basin 30 surrounding the housing, ¶0026-¶002); a battery receptacle (54, ¶0024-¶0025,¶0028) distinct from the pump housing (Fig 2, ¶0024-¶0028), the battery receptacle comprising: a battery 52 coupled to the battery receptacle (Figs 2-3, ¶0024-¶0028); and a controller (controller = 60, ¶0026-¶0028) coupled to the battery receptacle ( since controller 60 is disclosed as having connection points 68,70 for connecting to the battery (¶0028, Fig 3) the controller is connected to the battery receptacle 54 via the connection points and the battery 52 contained within the battery receptacle (¶0024) ) , electrically coupled with the sensor (¶0026-¶0027), and operable to control operation of the motor (¶0027-¶0029); and a cord ( i.e. cord illustrated in Fig 2 which extends between the top of pump 46 and controller 60 ) with a first end coupled to the pump housing ( first end = end of the cord in sump 30 which connects to the top of pump 46; the pump housing includes the top of pump 46 ) and a second end coupled to the battery receptacle ( second end = end of the cord connected to controller 60 in Fig 2, since controller 60 is disclosed as having connection points 68,70 for connecting to the battery (¶0028, Fig 3) the identified second end is connected to the battery receptacle via the connection points and the battery 52 contained within the battery receptacle (¶0024) ) , the cord electrically coupling the motor and the battery ( since the power from the battery that operates the motor of pump 46 is inherently delivered via outlet 72 and the cord ¶0027-¶0028, Fig 2, the cord electrically couples the motor and battery as claimed ) ; wherein the controller is configured to selectively supply electrical current to the motor from the battery through the cord based on the detected fluid level from the sensor ( since the electric power is supplied to the pump via the articulated cord based on the position of/level detected by float switch 50 (¶0024,¶0027-¶0028) the controller operates as claimed; as known in the art float switches for sump pumps such as pump 46 in Fig 2 provide a signal when the buoyant float has risen above a predetermined level and do not provide a signal when the float is below the predetermined level, thus as described in ¶0024 & ¶0027 the controller 60 activates the pump (by supplying electric current to the motor of pump 46) based on the sensed fluid level detected by sensor 50, and when the fluid reaches the predetermined level the pump is activated (i.e. supplies electric current to pump 46 and produces a non-zero volumetric flow) and when the fluid falls below the predetermined level the pump is deactivated (i.e. supplies zero current to the motor of pump 46 and produces a zero volumetric flow) ) , thereby adjusting a volumetric flow rate of the pump based on the fluid level (¶0024, ¶0027, when the fluid reaches the predetermined level the pump is activated (i.e. produces a non-zero volumetric flow) and when the fluid falls below the predetermined level the pump is deactivated (i.e. produces a zero volumetric flow)). Leonard US 2014/0202243 is silent regarding the limitations: an impeller configured to create a low-pressure region to draw fluid into the pump housing. The prior art of DE 20 2020 105 706 U which is directed to a submersible pump (Line 12-24) like Leonard US 2014/0202243, is noted. However, DE 20 2020 105 706 U does disclose the limitations: a motor (electric motor, Line 56-57 – drive device = electric motor in the reference) disposed within the pump housing ( Line 52-57 ) ; an impeller (impeller, Line 185-186) driven by the motor ( Line 185-190 ) and configured to create a low-pressure region to draw fluid ( fluid such as water, Line 28-33, Line 48-51 ) into the pump housing ( Line 185-190, the impeller generates a negative pressure (i.e. a low pressure region) to draw the fluid into the housing as claimed ) . Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the sump pump 46 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the sump pump (i.e. submersible pump 12 having pump housing 14, electric motor, and an impeller) of DE 20 2020 105 706 U, in order to use a known type of pump to remove fluid from the sump (DE ‘706 – Line 26-40) as known in the art. Regarding Claim 2 : DE 20 2020 105 706 U does disclose the limitations: further comprising a port 22 on the pump housing (as seen in Figs 2A-2B, pump housing 14 has port 22, Line 185-190, Line 251-256, Line 324-328), the port 22 configured to receive a hose (port 22 can be coupled to (i.e. receive) a hose Line 251-256). PNG media_image1.png 325 1070 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 2A of DE 20 2020 105 706 U (Attached Figure R) Regarding Claim 3 : DE 20 2020 105 706 U does disclose the limitations: further comprising a quick disconnect mechanism (quick disconnect mechanism = threads illustrated in Annotated Figure 2A of DE 20 2020 105 706 U (Attached Figure R) above; since ¶0022 in the SPEC of the instant application identifies threaded fittings as an example of a quick disconnect mechanism, the threads identified in Attached Figure R that are formed on port 22 correspond to the claimed quick disconnect mechanism) configured to connect the hose to the port (Line 251-256) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2014/0202243 in view of DE 20 2020 105 706 U as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Struthers USPN 6481973 . Regarding Claim 9 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by DE 20 2020 105 706 U discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Leonard US 2014/0202243 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the pump is configured to be daisy-chained with an additional cord to an additional pump, with the pump and the additional pump being arranged in series. However Struthers USPN 6481973 does disclose the limitations: wherein the pump (the pump = motor 12 which rotates centrifugal pump 54, Column 4 Line 3-12, and has controller 16,22, 36 – Column 3 Line 5-17, Column 3 Line 47-66, Column 4 Line 30-46) is configured to be daisy-chained with an additional cord ( the general accepted meaning of the term “daisy chain” is “connected together in a linear series”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pumps will be connected through separate cords/chains that will transmit diverse operating signals and link the pumps to the source of energy like additional cord = signal line 38 which communicates control board 22 with additional/other/slave pump 76 – Column 3 Line 62-Column 4 Line 2, Column 6 Line 29-49 ) to an additional pump (additional pump = other/slave pump 76, Fig 2, Column 6 Line 29-49; control board 22 of the pump (12,54,16,22,36) can be used to control other pumps 76 – Column 6 Line 29-49), with the pump and the additional pump being arranged in series (the additional pump 76 and centrifugal pump 54 (Column 6 Line 8-17) can be daisy-chained (in series) to transport liquid up a considerable head/distance or can be daisy-chained (in parallel) to increase the volume of liquid to be pumped - Column 6 Line 29-49). Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller 60 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the control board 22 of Struthers USPN 6481973; and daisy chain the fluid pump of Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by DE 20 2020 105 706 U with the other pumps 76 as taught by Struthers USPN 6481973 in order to be able to transport liquid up a considerable head/distance or be able to coordinate the activity of the various pumps so that the number of pumps active increases and decreases in proportion to the volume of liquid to be pumped reducing the wear and tear on each individual pump (Column 6 Line 29-41). Regarding Claim 11 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by DE 20 2020 105 706 U discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Leonard US 2014/0202243 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the pump is configured to be daisy-chained with an additional cord to an additional pump, with the pump and the additional pump being arranged in parallel. However Struthers USPN 6481973 does disclose the limitations: wherein the pump (the pump = motor 12 which rotates centrifugal pump 54, Column 4 Line 3-12, and has controller 16,22, 36 – Column 3 Line 5-17, Column 3 Line 47-66, Column 4 Line 30-46) is configured to be daisy-chained with an additional cord (additional cord = signal line 38 which communicates control board 22 with additional/other/slave pump 76 – Column 3 Line 62-Column 4 Line 2, Column 6 Line 29-49) to an additional pump (additional pump = other/slave pump 76, Fig 2, Column 6 Line 29-49; control board 22 of the pump (12,54,16,22,36) can be used to control other pumps 76 – Column 6 Line 29-49), with the pump and the additional pump being arranged in parallel (the additional pump 76 and centrifugal pump 54 (Column 6 Line 8-17) can be daisy-chained (in series) to transport liquid up a considerable head/distance or can be daisy-chained (in parallel) to increase the volume of liquid to be pumped - Column 6 Line 29-49). Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller 60 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the control board 22 of Struthers USPN 6481973; and daisy chain the fluid pump of Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by DE 20 2020 105 706 U with the other pumps 76 as taught by Struthers USPN 6481973 in order to be able to transport liquid up a considerable head/distance or be able to coordinate the activity of the various pumps so that the number of pumps active increases and decreases in proportion to the volume of liquid to be pumped reducing the wear and tear on each individual pump (Column 6 Line 29-41) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2014/0202243 in view of DE 20 2020 105 706 U as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nybo USPN 6981399 . Regarding Claim 36 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by DE 20 2020 105 706 U discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. Leonard US 2014/0202243 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor that detects fluid pressure experienced by the pump housing due to the fluid surrounding the pump housing and the controller is configured to calculate the fluid level based on the fluid pressure. However Nybo USPN 6981399 does disclose the limitations: wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor (Column 6 Line 36-Column 7 Line 2) that detects fluid pressure experienced by the pump housing due to the fluid surrounding the pump housing (Column 6 Line 46-Column 7 Line 2) and the controller (i.e. the control means of the pump, Column 7 Line 1-67) is configured to calculate the fluid level based on the fluid pressure (Column 6 Line 57-Column 7 Line 67). Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the sensor 50 and modify the controller 60 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the pressure sensor and pump control means of Nybo USPN 6981399 in order to be able to determine the exact height of the fluid level (Column 7 Line 44-67) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2014/0202243 in view of DE 20 2020 105 706 U and Nybo USPN 6981399 as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Anastos USPN 5076763 . Regarding Claim 37 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by of DE 20 2020 105 706 U and Nybo USPN 6981399 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 36. Leonard US 2014/0202243 does not disclose the limitations: a load sensor in electrical communication with the motor and the controller, with the load sensor configured to detect the load on the motor is below a predetermined value, and the controller being configured to adjust the supply of electrical current to the motor based on the detected load. However Anastos USPN 5076763 does disclose the limitations: a load sensor in electrical communication with the motor (load sensor = resistor 19 in ground leg 20, as described in Column 4 Line 20-Column 5 Line 2 which is connected to the pump motor PM, also see Fig 1) and the controller (i.e. control structure illustrated in Fig 1 which is connected to the resistor 19 in ground leg), with the load sensor configured to detect the load on the motor is below a predetermined value (Column 2 Line 60-Column 3 Line 12, Column 4 Line 20-45), and the controller being configured to adjust the supply of electrical current to the motor based on the detected load (shut off the motor when determined the pump is being starved of liquid Column 2 Line 60-Column 3 Line 12). Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pump motor and the controller 60 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the load sensor 19 and the controller (Fig 1) of Anastos USPN 5076763 in order to prevent the pump from running dry (e.g. being starved of liquid) for an extended period of time (Column 2 Line 51-Column 3 Line 12) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12, 14-15, 17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2014/0202243 in view of Seman US 2017/0122325 . Regarding Claim 12 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 discloses the limitations: A pump system (the pump system is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising: a pump (the pump is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising: a pump housing (housing of pump 46 shown in Fig 2); a motor disposed within the pump housing (since the pump is disclosed as being electrically powered (¶0027) there is inherently an electric motor located within the housing of pump 46); the pump driven by the motor (the pump is inherently driven by the electric motor of pump 46); and a sensor (sensor = float switch 50, Fig 2, ¶0026-¶0027) coupled to the pump housing (sensor 50 is coupled to the pump housing via elements 36, 38, 21, and 17 connected to the outlet of the pump in Fig 2), the sensor detecting a fluid level surrounding the pump housing (sensor 50 detects a second level of the water in basin 30 surrounding the housing, ¶0026-¶002); a battery receptacle (54, ¶0024-¶0025,¶0028) distinct from the pump housing (Fig 2, ¶0024-¶0028), the battery receptacle being configured to receive a battery (battery = 52; Figs 2-3, ¶0024) and further comprising: a controller (controller = 60, ¶0026-¶0028) coupled to the battery receptacle (since controller 60 is disclosed as having connection points 68,70 for connecting to the battery (¶0028, Fig 3) the controller is connected to the battery receptacle 54 via the connection points and the battery 52 contained within the battery receptacle (¶0024)), electrically coupled with the sensor (since the sensor 50 sends signals to the controller 60 (¶0024, ¶0027), and it is disclosed that the connection point 76 provides power from the controller to the sensor (¶0028) the sensor 50 is electrically coupled to the controller 60 as claimed), and operable to control operation of the motor (¶0027-¶0029), a cord (i.e. cord illustrated in Fig 2 which extends between the top of pump 46 and controller 60) with a first end coupled to the pump housing (first end = end of the cord in sump 30 which connects to the top of pump 46; the pump housing includes the top of pump 46) and a second end coupled to the battery receptacle (second end = end of the cord connected to controller 60 in Fig 2, since controller 60 is disclosed as having connection points 68,70 for connecting to the battery (¶0028, Fig 3) the identified second end is connected to the battery receptacle via the connection points and the battery 52 contained within the battery receptacle (¶0024)), the cord electrically coupling the motor and the battery (since the power from the battery that operates the motor of pump 46 is inherently delivered via outlet 72 and the cord ¶0027-¶0028, Fig 2, the cord electrically couples the motor and battery as claimed); wherein the controller is configured to selectively supply electrical current to the motor from the battery through the cord based on the detected fluid level from the sensor ( since the electric power is supplied to the pump via the articulated cord based on the position of/level detected by float switch 50 (¶0024,¶0027-¶0028) the controller operates as claimed; as known in the art float switches for sump pumps such as pump 46 in Fig 2 provide a signal when the buoyant float has risen above a predetermined level and do not provide a signal when the float is below the predetermined level, thus as described in ¶0024 & ¶0027 the controller 60 activates the pump (by supplying electric current to the motor of pump 46) based on the sensed fluid level detected by sensor 50, and when the fluid reaches the predetermined level the pump is activated (i.e. supplies electric current to pump 46 and produces a non-zero volumetric flow) and when the fluid falls below the predetermined level the pump is deactivated (i.e. supplies zero current to the motor of pump 46 and produces a zero volumetric flow) ) , thereby adjusting the volumetric flow rate of the pump (¶0024, ¶0027, when the fluid reaches the predetermined level the pump is activated (i.e. produces a non-zero volumetric flow) and when the fluid falls below the predetermined level the pump is deactivated (i.e. produces a zero volumetric flow)). Leonard US 2014/0202243 is silent regarding the limitations: an impeller configured to create a low-pressure region to draw fluid into the pump housing; a user interface in communication with the controller and operable to adjust a volumetric flow rate of the pump; a remote control in wireless communication with the controller; and wherein the remote control indicates whether the fluid level surrounding the pump housing is below a threshold level and whether the controller selectively has halted the supply of electrical current to the motor. The prior art of Seman US 2017/0122325 which is directed to a battery powered sump pump (title, abstract) like Leonard US 2014/0202243, is noted. However, Seman US 2017/0122325 does disclose the limitations: a controller ( the controller is defined by the sum of its parts; controller = 21C, ¶0012 ) operable to control operation of the motor (element 21C is able to control speed and/or operation of motor 21 – ¶0012); an impeller (22, ¶0013-¶0017) configured to create a low-pressure region to draw fluid into the pump housing (as known in the art impellers like impeller 22 inherently create a low pressure region to draw fluid into the pump housing as claimed); a user interface (user interface = display 21RD and the input devices on element 21RC in Fig 1, ¶0026-¶0031 – the interface is the human machine interface (HMI) portion of remote control 21RC) in communication with the controller (i.e. in wireless communication with controller 21C, ¶0027-¶0030) and operable to adjust a volumetric flow rate of the pump (¶0030 – since the pump is an impeller pump and the HMI of remote 21RC allows a user control the motor speed – the user interface/HMI is capable of (i.e. operable to) adjust a volumetric flow rate of the pump as claimed); a remote control (21RC, Fig 1, ¶0025-¶0031) in wireless communication with the controller (Fig 1, ¶0025-¶0031); and wherein the remote control indicates whether the fluid level surrounding the pump housing is below a threshold level (since ¶0030 states that the remote control 21RC is able to display fluid volume to be pumped out, motor speed, and if the pump is on/off, it follows that in the combination of prior art the remote control 21RC of Seman would also be capable of indicating if the fluid level is below a threshold value as claimed) and whether the controller selectively has halted the supply of electrical current to the motor (since ¶0030 states that the remote control 21RC is able to display motor speed, and if the pump is on/off, it follows that in the combination of prior art the remote control 21RC of Seman would also be capable of indicating if the motor has stopped (e.g. if the controller has halted the supply of electrical current to the motor) as claimed). Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the motor driven sump pump 46 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the motor 21 driven impeller 22 sump pump 100 of Seman US 2017/0122325; and modify the case 62 and controller 60 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the antenna 21WA, wireless receive 21W, and motor controller 21C, and also provide remote control 21RC as taught by Seman US 2017/0122325 in order to enable the user to control all of the operational features of the fluid pump remotely (¶0027-¶0031). Regarding Claim 14 : Seman US 2017/0122325 does disclose the limitations: wherein the user interface is provided on the remote control that is in wireless communication with the controller (it is, the identified user interface corresponds to the HMI of the remote control 21RC, thus the user interface is provided on the remote control as claimed). Regarding Claim 15 : Seman US 2017/0122325 does disclose the limitations: wherein the user interface is configured to adjust a rotational speed of the motor (¶0030-¶0031). Regarding Claim 17 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 12. The prior art as combined above does not disclose the limitations: wherein the user interface is disposed on the battery receptacle. PNG media_image2.png 978 1482 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 1 & Figure 2 of Seman US 2017/0122325 (Attached Figure A) However Seman US 2017/0122325 does disclose the limitations: a user interface (user interface = speed selector 32, volume selector 33) in communication with the controller (¶0025-¶0026; in communication with motor controller 21C) and operable to adjust a volumetric flow rate of the pump (¶0026); wherein the user interface is disposed on the battery receptacle ( battery receptacle = housing 11, and cavity 11C having electric terminals 11T disposed therein, also see Annotated Figure 1 & Figure 2 of Seman US 2017/0122325 (Attached Figure A) above; the battery receptacle (11,11C,11T) receives the battery as shown in Fig 2 - ¶0011 ) . Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery receptacle 54 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the user interface (Attached Figure A) of Seman US 2017/0122325 in order to allow the user to locally change the speed of the pump. Regarding Claim 21 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 12. Additionally, Leonard US 2014/0202243 discloses the limitations: further comprising a current sensor electrically coupled to the controller (Leonard – ¶0037-¶0038 – discloses that the controller 60 is able to monitor high current draw on the second pump (¶0038) which would inherently require a current sensor electrically coupled to the controller 60 for monitoring the current draw of the pump 46 | Seman – motor controller 21C detects current flowing into the motor as described in ¶0018, thus there is inherently a current sensor electrically coupled to the controller 21C as claimed) and configured to monitor electrical current drawn by the motor (Leonard – the electrical current drawn by the motor of the second pump 46 would inherently be monitored with the current sensor measuring high current draw on the second pump | Seman – as described in ¶0018-¶0020); wherein the controller is configured to deactivate the motor in response to the electrical current sensed by the current sensor reaching a predetermined value (Seman – reaching a predetermined value = falling below a predetermined threshold – as described in ¶0019; when the current value falls below the threshold the motor 21 is deactivated, ¶0019) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2014/0202243 in view of Seman US 2017/0122325 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Struthers USPN 6481973 . Regarding Claim 18 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 12. Leonard US 2014/0202243 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the pump is configured to be daisy-chained with an additional cord to an additional pump, with the pump and the additional pump being arranged in series. However Struthers USPN 6481973 does disclose the limitations: wherein the pump (the pump = motor 12 which rotates centrifugal pump 54, Column 4 Line 3-12, and has controller 16,22, 36 – Column 3 Line 5-17, Column 3 Line 47-66, Column 4 Line 30-46) is configured to be daisy-chained with an additional cord ( the general accepted meaning of the term “daisy chain” is “connected together in a linear series”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pumps will be connected through separate cords/chains that will transmit diverse operating signals and link the pumps to the source of energy like additional cord = signal line 38 which communicates control board 22 with additional/other/slave pump 76 – Column 3 Line 62-Column 4 Line 2, Column 6 Line 29-49 ) to an additional pump (additional pump = other/slave pump 76, Fig 2, Column 6 Line 29-49; control board 22 of the pump (12,54,16,22,36) can be used to control other pumps 76 – Column 6 Line 29-49), with the pump and the additional pump being arranged in series (the additional pump 76 and centrifugal pump 54 (Column 6 Line 8-17) can be daisy-chained (in series) to transport liquid up a considerable head/distance or can be daisy-chained (in parallel) to increase the volume of liquid to be pumped - Column 6 Line 29-49). Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 with the control board 22 of Struthers USPN 6481973; and daisy chain the fluid pump of Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 with the other pumps 76 as taught by Struthers USPN 6481973 in order to be able to transport liquid up a considerable head/distance or be able to coordinate the activity of the various pumps so that the number of pumps active increases and decreases in proportion to the volume of liquid to be pumped reducing the wear and tear on each individual pump (Column 6 Line 29-41) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2014/0202243 in view of Seman US 2017/0122325 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of evidence by Crane TP-410. It is noted that Crane TP-410 was provided on 12/05/2024 in the file wrapper . Regarding Claim 19 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 discloses that the pump is an impeller pump (Seman – as described in ¶0013) and that the pump is powered by the battery (Leonard – ¶0024, ¶0027). Therefore, Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 inherently disclose that power output of the battery causes the impeller to rotate at a speed (since the battery the only power source for pump 46 in the device, power output of the battery to the pump (i.e. the claimed power output of the battery) inherently causes the impeller to rotate at a speed). Additionally the evidence of Crane TP-410 discloses that for centrifugal pumps the power (i.e. power consumed by the centrifugal pump) is equal to the rotational speed cubed (see equation 5-4, and page 5-4 in Crane TP-410). Accordingly in light of the evidence of Crane TP-410 the relationship between impeller speed of the impeller (i.e. speed of the impeller 22 in Seman) and power output of the battery (i.e. power output of the battery which is consumed by the motor of the pump) is cubic (it is, the pump affinity rules state that power = rotational speed cubed; thus power = impeller speed cubed; accordingly in the prior art of Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 discloses the relationship between a speed of the impeller and power output by the battery (which is consumed by the centrifugal pump) is cubic as claimed; additionally it is noted that the pump affinity laws are the same as the pump affinity rules disclosed by Crane TP-410). Regarding Claim 20 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 discloses the limitations: wherein the user interface allows selection between at least three modes to change the volumetric flow rate ( in the combination of prior art, since Seman discloses (¶0030) that the remote is able to control all operational features of the pump including motor speed – in the combination the HMI/user interface of the remote control 21RC of Seman would be able to change the speed of the pump motor (i.e. operate the pump motor at three different speeds - a slowest pump speed setting, a fastest pump speed setting, and a medium pump speed setting between the slowest and fastest pump speed settings) to change the volumetric flow rate delivered by the pump ) : an economy mode (Seman – the slowest on pump speed setting of the remote control 21RC) that prioritizes run time of the battery (run time of the battery = the total amount of time the battery can power the pump, because of the cubic relationship (Crane TP-410 – equation 5-4) between power consumed and pump speed, the slowest on pump speed setting will inherently have the longest total run time with all other factors (such as initial charge of the battery) being equal) over the volumetric flow rate (over the volume per unit time (i.e. capacity Q) produced by the impeller 22 of Seman), a fast mode (Seman – fastest speed setting of the remote control 21RC) that prioritizes the volumetric flow rate over the run time of the battery (given the proportional relationship between the speed of the pump N and the flowrate produced Q (Crane TP-410 0 equation 5-2) the greater the speed the greater the flowrate; however the fastest speed setting will also have the greatest power drain – and the shortest battery life – because of the cubic relationship (Crane TP-410 – equation 5-4) between power consumed & pump speed), and a standard mode (Seman – medium speed setting of the remote control 21RC – half way between the slowest and fastest speed settings) that optimizes both the run time of the battery and the volumetric flow rate (Crane TP-410 - due to the relationships defined by the flow rate equation (equation 5-2) and the power equation (equation 5-4) – the medium speed setting would inherently have a longer run time of the battery than the fastest speed setting, and a shorter run time of the battery than the slowest speed setting with all other factors (such as initial charge of the battery) being equal, also the medium speed setting will result in flow that is proportional to the speed given the flow rate affinity rule) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2014/0202243 in view of Seman US 2017/0122325 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nybo USPN 6981399 . Regarding Claim 38 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 12. Leonard US 2014/0202243 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor that detects fluid pressure experienced by the pump housing due to the fluid surrounding the pump housing and the controller is configured to calculate the fluid level based on the fluid pressure. However Nybo USPN 6981399 does disclose the limitations: wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor (Column 6 Line 36-Column 7 Line 2) that detects fluid pressure experienced by the pump housing due to the fluid surrounding the pump housing (Column 6 Line 46-Column 7 Line 2) and the controller (i.e. the control means of the pump, Column 7 Line 1-67) is configured to calculate the fluid level based on the fluid pressure (Column 6 Line 57-Column 7 Line 67). Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the sensor 50 and modify the controller 60 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the pressure sensor and pump control means of Nybo USPN 6981399 in order to be able to determine the exact height of the fluid level (Column 7 Line 44-67) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard US 2014/0202243 in view of Seman US 2017/0122325 and Nybo USPN 6981399 as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Anastos USPN 5076763 . Regarding Claim 39 : Leonard US 2014/0202243 as modified by Seman US 2017/0122325 and Nybo USPN 6981399 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 38. Leonard US 2014/0202243 does not disclose the limitations: a load sensor in electrical communication with the motor and the controller, with the load sensor configured to detect the load on the motor is below a predetermined value, and the controller being configured to halt the supply of electrical current to the motor when the detected load is below a predetermined value. However Anastos USPN 5076763 does disclose the limitations: a load sensor in electrical communication with the motor (load sensor = resistor 19 in ground leg 20, as described in Column 4 Line 20-Column 5 Line 2 which is connected to the pump motor PM, also see Fig 1) and the controller (i.e. control structure illustrated in Fig 1 which is connected to the resistor 19 in ground leg), with the load sensor configured to detect the load on the motor is below a predetermined value (Column 2 Line 60-Column 3 Line 12, Column 4 Line 20-45), and the controller being configured to halt the supply of electrical current to the motor when the detected load is below a predetermined value (shut off the motor when determined the pump is being starved of liquid Column 2 Line 60-Column 3 Line 12). Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pump motor and the controller 60 of Leonard US 2014/0202243 with the load sensor 19 and the controller (Fig 1) of Anastos USPN 5076763 in order to prevent the pump from running dry (e.g. being starved of liquid) for an extended period of time (Column 2 Line 51-Column 3 Line 12). Examiner's Note : The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123 ). Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian , 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125 ). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well. Furthermore : with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston , 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141 ) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Page 7 ¶1-Page 9 ¶5: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1 based on Leonard and DE ‘706 – by arguing that Leonard does not teach a sensor coupled to the pump housing, the sensor detecting a fluid level surrounding the pump housing OR the controller … based on the detected fluid level from the sensor, thereby adjusting a volumetric flow rate of the pump based on the detected fluid level . --Examiner disagrees. First the sensor 50 of Leonard is connected to the pump housing via the discharge piping connected to the outlet of the pump housing in Fig 2. Since claim 1 just requires a general connection between the sensor and the pump housing, the prior art of Leonard is able to address the language of the claim as currently written. Furthermore, since the sensor 50 detects a level which is used to start and stop the motor of the pump based on the level sensed by sensor 50, it follows that the controller 60 based on the detected fluid level sensed by the sensor 50 adjusts the volumetric flow of the pump (i.e. adjusts the delivery of the pump to be either a non-zero amount when the pump is on due to the level sensed by sensor 50, or adjusts the delivery of the pump to be a zero amount when the pump is off due to the level sensed by sensor 50). Accordingly, since the language the claim is broad, and does not preclude this interpretation, the prior art of Leonard and DE ‘706 are able to make obvious the language of claim 1 as currently written. Accordingly Applicants arguments are not persuasive for the reasons explained above.--. Page 9 ¶6-Page 11 ¶1: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 12 based on Leonard and Seman US 2017/0122325 – by arguing that Leonard does not teach a sensor coupled to the pump housing, the sensor detecting a fluid level surrounding the pump housing OR the controller … based on the detected fluid level from the sensor, thereby adjusting a volumetric flow rate of the pump based on the detected fluid level . -- Examiner disagrees. First the sensor 50 of Leonard is connected to the pump housing via the discharge piping connected to the outlet of the pump housing in Fig 2. Since claim 12 just requires a general connection between the sensor and the pump housing, the prior art of Leonard is able to address the language of the claim as currently written. Furthermore, since the sensor 50 detects a level which is used to start and stop the motor of the pump based on the level sensed by sensor 50, it follows that the controller 60 based on the detected fluid level sensed by the sensor 50 adjusts the volumetric flow of the pump (i.e. adjusts the delivery of the pump to be either a non-zero amount when the pump is on due to the level sensed by sensor 50, or adjusts the delivery of the pump to be a zero amount when the pump is off due to the level sensed by sensor 50). Accordingly, since the language the claim is broad, and does not preclude this interpretation, the prior art of Leonard and Seman US 2017/0122325 are able to make obvious the language of claim 12 as currently written. Accordingly Applicants arguments are not persuasive for the reasons explained above.--. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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. /CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 /JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 2 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 3 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 4 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 5 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 6 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 7 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 8 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 9 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 10 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 11 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 12 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 13 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 14 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 15 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 16 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 17 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 18 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 19 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 20 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 21 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 22 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 23 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 24 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 25 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 26 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 27 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 28 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/139,145 Page 29 Art Unit: 3746
Prosecution Insights