DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 17 May 2023. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 refers to “the minimum threshold value”. However, there is no antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 17 refers to “the maximum water temperature threshold value”. However, there is no antecedent basis for this term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calabrese (US 2006/0204647 A1) hereinafter known as Calabrese in view of Jones (US 2004/0262414 A1) hereinafter known as Jones in view of Ibrahim (US 2018/0282962 A1) hereinafter known as Ibrahim.
Regarding independent claim 1, Calabrese teaches:
A snow-melting device for melting snow and defrosting ice, the snow-melting device comprising: a wireless transceiver module; (Calabrese: Fig. 1 and ¶[0023]-¶[0024]; Calabrese teaches a weather station which allows for communicating temperature and air moisture wirelessly.)
...
a first temperature sensor configured to capture environment temperature data; (Calabrese: ¶[0024]; Calabrese teaches a temperature sensor.)
a container configured to hold melting water comprising a melting reagent and water, the container comprising a water boiler, a release valve, and ... ; (Calabrese: Fig. 1 and ¶[0029] and ¶[0031]; Calabrese teaches a water/deicing solution tank. ¶[0027] teaches a heater. ¶[0031] teaches an exit valve.)
a processing module comprising: a processor operatively connected to the wireless transceiver module, the precipitation sensor, the temperature sensor, and the container; (Calabrese: Fig. 1 and ¶[0026]; Calabrese teaches a controller unit with a processor, which is connected to the weather station 20 that contains the moisture sensor and also connected to the container.)
...
compare the environmental temperature data to an environmental temperature threshold value; and (Calabrese: ¶[0039]; Calabrese teaches determining whether the outside temperature is below 32F.)
... the environmental temperature data is below the environmental temperature threshold, then transmit a release signal to the container, wherein the release signal configures the release valve to open thereby causing the melting water to flow out of the container. (Calabrese: Fig. 4 and ¶[0050]; Calabrese teaches opening the valve when the temperature falls below 32F and air moisture content rises about 99%.)
Calabrese does not explicitly teach but Jones teaches:
a precipitation sensor configured to capture precipitation data from an environment; (Jones: ¶[0025]-¶[0032]; Jones teaches a moisture sensor to detect moisture in the environment, such as through AC conductivity.)
a memory storing a program comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the snow-melting device to: compare the precipitation data to a precipitation threshold value; (Jones: ¶[0025]-¶[0032]; Jones teaches a moisture sensor to detect moisture in the environment, such as through AC conductivity. Jones teaches that any conductivity means exposure to precipitation in any form. Thus, the threshold is any precipitation.)
when the precipitation data is above a precipitation threshold and ... (Jones: Fig.4 and ¶[0025]-¶[0032]; Jones teaches a moisture sensor to detect moisture in the environment, such as through AC conductivity. Jones teaches that any conductivity means exposure to precipitation in any form. Thus, the threshold is any precipitation.)
Calabrese and Jones are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to melting frozen precipitation. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to substitute measuring the air moisture and comparing it to a threshold when triggering release of melting water as taught in Calabrese with measuring the precipitation as taught in Jones. Jones provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese to include teachings of Jones because it would allow to determine whether the melting operation is needed, as suggested by Jones: Fig. 4 and ¶[0025]-¶[0032].
Calabrese in view of Jones does not explicitly teach but Ibrahim teaches
... a second temperature sensor configured to capture melting water temperature data; (Ibrahim: Fig. 3 and ¶[0020]; Ibrahim teaches a temperature sensor for the fluid.)
Ibrahim is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to melting snow. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine measuring the air moisture and comparing it to a threshold when triggering release of melting water wherein the system is able to heat the water as taught in Calabrese with a temperature sensor for the fluid as taught in Ibrahim. Ibrahim provides this additional functionality. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese and Jones to include teachings of Ibrahim because it would allow triggering a heat sequence, as suggested by Ibrahim: ¶[0020].
Regarding claim 2, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese further teaches:
wherein the program further comprises instructions that, when executed by the processor, further causes the snow-melting device to transmit a close signal to the container when a duty cycle high period is complete, wherein the close signal configures the release valve to close thereby stopping the melting water from flowing out of the container. (Calabrese: Fig. 4 and ¶[0040]; Calabrese teaches closing the valve after a time has elapsed.)
Regarding claim 3, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Jones further teaches:
wherein the duty cycle high period is 10 minutes over a course of an hour. (Jones: Fig. 4 and ¶[0028]; Jones teaches de-energizing the moisture sensor for ten minutes.)
Regarding claim 6, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese further teaches:
wherein the program further comprises instructions that, when executed by the processor, further causes the snow-melting device to compare the melting water temperature data to a minimum threshold value and a maximum threshold value. (Calabrese: ¶[0039]; Calabrese teaches heating the water to above freezing but below boiling.)
Regarding claim 7, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese further teaches:
wherein the program further comprises further comprises instructions that, when executed by the processor, further causes the snow-melting device to transmit an activation signal to the water boiler when the melting water temperature data is below the minimum threshold value, wherein the activation signal turns the water boiler on. (Calabrese: ¶[0039]; Calabrese teaches heating the water to above freezing but below boiling.)
Regarding claim 8, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 7.
Calabrese further teaches:
wherein the program further comprises further comprises instructions that, when executed by the processor, transmit a deactivation signal to the water boiler when the melting water temperature data is above the maximum threshold value, wherein the deactivation signal turns the water boiler off. (Calabrese: ¶[0039]; Calabrese teaches heating the water to above freezing but below boiling.)
Regarding claim 9, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese further teaches:
wherein the melting water is distributed through a network of PVC piping. (Calabrese: ¶[0034]; Calabrese teaches piping consisting of PVC.)
Regarding claim 13, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese further teaches:
wherein the melting reagent comprises alcohol, and chloride salts. (Calabrese: ¶[0033]; Calabrese teaches the deicing solution consisting of ethylene glycol, alcohols, and water and salt.)
Regarding claim 15, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese further teaches:
wherein the temperature threshold value is zero degrees Celsius. (Calabrese: ¶[0039]; Calabrese teaches determining whether the outside temperature is below 32F or 0C.)
Regarding claim 16, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese further teaches:
wherein the minimum water temperature threshold value is zero degrees Celsius. (Calabrese: ¶[0039]; Calabrese teaches heating the water to above freezing but below boiling.)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calabrese in view of Jones in view of LaWhite (US 2010/0071890 A1) hereinafter known as LaWhite.
Regarding claim 4, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese does not explicitly teach but LaWhite teaches:
wherein the program further comprises instructions that, when executed by the processor, further causes the snow-melting device to transmit a close signal to the container when the ... data sensor indicates there is no precipitation, wherein the close signal configures the release valve to close thereby stopping the melting water from flowing out of the container. (LaWhite: ¶[0070]; LaWhite teaches turning off the pump when the precipitation sensor no longer detect precipitation.)
LaWhite is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to deicing. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a deicing system that activates based on precipitation and temperature as taught in Calabrese in view of Jones with further deactivating when precipitation is no longer sensed. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese and Jones to include teachings of LaWhite because it would allow assure operation of the system until the snow or ice has melted, as suggested by LaWhite: ¶[0070].
Regarding claim 5, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese further teaches:
wherein the program further comprises instructions that, when executed by the processor, further causes the snow-melting device to transmit a close signal to the container when the environment temperature data is above the environmental temperature threshold, wherein the close signal configures the release valve to close thereby stopping the melting water from flowing out of the container. (LaWhite: ¶[0070]; LaWhite teaches turning off the pump when the temperature is sufficiently high.)
LaWhite is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to deicing. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a deicing system that activates based on precipitation and temperature as taught in Calabrese in view of Jones with further deactivating when the temperature is sufficiently high as taught in LaWhite. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese and Jones to include teachings of LaWhite because it would allow assure operation of the system until the snow or ice has melted, as suggested by LaWhite: ¶[0070].
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calabrese in view of Jones in view of Kumar (https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2204288.pdf, attached as pdf) hereinafter known as Kumar.
Regarding claim 10, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese in view of Jones does not teach but Kumar teaches:
wherein the processing module is an Arduino Uno microcontroller. (Kumar: pg. 6; Kumar teaches an Arduino Uno controller.)
Kumar is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to snow melting systems. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to substitute the controller module in Calabrese with the Arduino Uno controller of Kumar. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese and Jones to include teachings of Kumar because it would allow to trigger the system based on temperature thresholds, as suggested by Kumar: pg. 6.
Regarding claim 11, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 10.
Calabrese in view of Jones does not teach but Kumar teaches:
wherein the Arduino Uno microcontroller connects with the water boiler through a voltage relay. (Kumar: pg. 6; Kumar teaches an Arduino Uno controller with a voltage relay.)
Kumar is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to snow melting systems. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to substitute the controller module in Calabrese with the Arduino Uno controller with a voltage relay of Kumar. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese and Jones to include teachings of Kumar because it would allow to trigger the system based on temperature thresholds, as suggested by Kumar: pg. 6.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calabrese in view of Jones in view of Dellal (US 2022/0268028 A1) hereinafter known as Dellal.
Regarding claim 12, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese in view of Jones does not teach but Dellal teaches:
wherein the snow melting device is connected and controlled wirelessly by a mobile application. (Dellal: Fig. 7 and ¶[0128] and ¶[0141]-¶[0142]; Dellal teaches using a mobile application to control the deicer system.)
Dellal is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to deicing. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a deicing system that activates based on precipitation and temperature as taught in Calabrese in view of Jones with further allowing a user to control the system via a mobile application as taught in Dellal. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese and Jones to include teachings of Dellal because it would allow the user to set specific parameters, as suggested by Dellal: ¶[0142].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calabrese in view of Jones in view of Dunaway (US 2004/0011990 A1) hereinafter known as Dunaway in view of HumbleBee (https://web.archive.org/web/20230330110941/https://www.humblebeeandme.com/project/sodium-stearate/, attached as pdf), hereinafter known as HumbleBee.
Regarding claim 14, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 13.
Calabrese in view of Jones does not teach but Dunaway teaches:
wherein the melting water ratio is 30 gallons of water to 1.5 gallons of alcohol .... (Dunaway: ¶[0026]; Dunaway teaches water content to glycol ranges from 0.1% to 5.0%. 5.0% is the ratio of 30 to 1.5.)
Dunaway is analogous to the present invention, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. water to alcohol ratio. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a deicing system that uses a water and alcohol solution as taught in Calabrese in view of Jones with the solution being 5.0% glycol as taught in Dunaway. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese and Jones to include teachings of Dunaway because it would allow an efficient solution ratio.
Calabrese in view of Jones in view of Dunaway does not teach but HumbleBee teaches:
... three ounces of sodium stearate. (HumbleBee: pg. 1; HumbleBee teaches using 3.oz of sodium stearate.)
HumbleBee is analogous to the present invention, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. adding in sodium stearate. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a deicing system that uses a water and alcohol solution as taught in Calabrese in view of Jones in view of Dunaway with adding 3.5 oz of sodium stearate as taught in HumbleBee. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese, Jones, and Dunaway to include teachings of HumbleBee because it would allow using a thickening agent, as suggested by HumbleBee: pg. 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calabrese in view of Jones in view of Bang (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002449900419, attached as pdf) hereinafter known as Bang.
Regarding claim 17, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese in view of Jones does not teach but Bang teaches:
wherein the maximum water temperature threshold value is twenty degrees Celsius. (Bang: pg. 2, BOD Experiments; Bang teaches testing a deicing solution at the temperature of 20 Celsius.)
Bang is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to deicing. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a deicing system that activates based on precipitation and temperature as taught in Calabrese in view of Jones with further setting the temperature of the deicing solution at 20 Celsius as taught in Bang. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese and Jones to include teachings of Bang because it would allow standardizing the water temperature.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calabrese in view of Jones in view of Buderus (https://web.archive.org/web/20211103041103/https://lskair.com/Literature/BuderusS120.pdf, attached as pdf) hereinafter known as Buderus.
Regarding claim 18, Calabrese in view of Jones further teaches the snow-melting device of claim 1.
Calabrese in view of Jones does not teach but Buderus teaches:
wherein the container is a thirty-two gallon container. (Buderus: pgs. 1-2; Buderus teaches a 32 gallon tank.)
Buderus is analogous to the present invention, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. a container tank for water. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a deicing system that activates based on precipitation and temperature which uses a tank of water as taught in Calabrese in view of Jones with further the tank being a 32 gallon container as taught in Buderus. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Calabrese and Jones to include teachings of Buderus because it would allow efficient water distribution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118