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
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: “computing device” in claim 8 and “processing unit” in claims 10-15.
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.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buescher et al. (20130193221). Buescher et al. discloses (claim 1) a method comprising determining a reserve capacity of an Electric Water Heater (EWH) 10 (paragraphs [0039] and [0042], “…effective capacity…”), determining a safe deferred time for the EWH based on the determined reserve capacity (paragraph [0063] “…setback temperature for different times of day or days of the week…”, receiving a grid service event initiation ; and causing, in response to receiving the grid service event initiation, the EWH to not heat water for the determined safe deferred time (paragraphs [0086]-[0088], and [0101]).
Regarding claim 10, Buescher et al. discloses a system comprising a memory storage (paragraph [0039], “…memory…”), and a processing unit (paragraph [0039], “…control module 12…”) coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processing unit is operative to determine a reserve capacity of an Electric Water Heater (EWH) 10 (paragraphs [0039] and [0042], “…effective capacity…”), determine a safe deferred time for the EWH based on the determined reserve capacity (paragraph [0063] “…setback temperature for different times of day or days of the week…”, receive a grid service event initiation ; and cause, in response to receiving the grid service event initiation, the EWH to not heat water for the determined safe deferred time (paragraphs [0086]-[0088], and [0101]).
Regarding claim 16, Buescher et al. discloses a computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions (paragraph [0039] “…memory…”) which when executed (by control module 12) perform a method executed by the set of instructions comprising determining a reserve capacity of an Electric Water Heater (EWH) 10 (paragraphs [0039] and [0042], “…effective capacity…”), determining a safe deferred time for the EWH based on the determined reserve capacity (paragraph [0063] “…setback temperature for different times of day or days of the week…”, receiving a grid service event initiation ; and causing, in response to receiving the grid service event initiation, the EWH to not heat water for the determined safe deferred time (paragraphs [0086]-[0088], and [0101]).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 17 and 18, Buescher et al. discloses that determining the reserve capacity of the EWH is based on estimated power usage of the EWH by obtaining historic power usage of the EWH; and feeding the obtained historic power usage of the EWH into a stochastic prediction model (paragraphs [0063], [0111], and [0113], “…historical information…”, “…The control module 204 may further apply a confidence value for each period and the corresponding category. For example, the control module 204 may increase the confidence value if the usage information for a particular period is consistently the same, or decrease the confidence value if the usage information varies by more than a threshold from day-to-day or week-to-week…”).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 19, and 20, Buescher et al. discloses that determining the reserve capacity of the EWH is based on a two-mass model of the EWH (upper and lower), wherein a first mass of the two-mass model is associated with water in an upper portion of the EWH (heated by upper heating element 16) and a second mass of the two-mass model is associated with water in a lower portion of the EWH (heated by lower heating element 18) (paragraphs [0108]-[0110]).
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 15, Buescher et al. discloses that causing the EWH to not heat water for the determined safe deferred time comprises causing the EWH to not heat water for the determined safe deferred time when a hot water capacity estimated to be left at an end of the safe deferred time is greater than a predetermined threshold (paragraph [0065], “…excess effective capacity…”) and the predetermined threshold is between 10% and 25% as defined by a user (paragraphs [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Buescher et al. discloses that the method is performed by a computing device at a home (‘…household…” where the EWH 10 is disposed, wherein the computing device is a smart meter 208 (paragraphs [0085]-[0088]).
Prior Art
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure for showing other electric water heater control with energy saving systems.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Lazo whose telephone number is (571) 272-4818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe, can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for this Group 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.
/THOMAS E LAZO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3745
February 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights