DETAILED ACTION
Claims 25-45 are pending, claims 1-24 have been cancelled.
This action is in response to the amendment filed 1/20/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered, although are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the examiner agreed that the limitations would overcome the rejection of record are not persuasive, as the examiner stated that the proposed amendment seen at the time of the interview, appeared to overcome the rejection of record. The limitations as filed are different than the previously discussed amendments, and as discussed below a different interpretation for “vein” is applied to item 124 which overcomes the current filed amended claims. The structure discussed during the interview centered around the connection between the valve head and the retainer, which is different than the amendments in the received reply dated 1/20/2026. It was noted in the interview for the proposed limitations, that a 103 rejection could be applied for the connection between the valve and retainer, with further possible amendments discussed at that time.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Morrow reference not teaching " a vein connected to the housing, the vein defining a passage extending from a lower end of the vein to an upper end of the vein; the vein configured to be received “within-but not itself include-each” of a valve member and a valve retainer of a valve of the hydrant, the valve member being configured to prevent water from entering the hydrant by sealing an opening to the hydrant and the valve retainer configured to maintain a position of the valve member when the valve member is sealing the opening to the hydrant", is not persuasive, since Morrow discloses, a vein (124, see Fig. 3 and col. 5, lns. 33-59, wired connection 124; data signal provided by … “USB”, the outer jacket of the USB cable being considered as the vein, the vein/jacket having 3 inner data jacketed wires with copper inner wiring (see below)) connected to the housing, the vein defining a passage (the space within the vein that surrounds the inner data jacketed wires) extending from a lower end (the lower end in the passage) of the vein to an upper end (the upper end in the passage) of the vein; the vein configured to be received “within-but not itself include-each” of a valve member (110) and a valve retainer (108) of a valve (110,108) of the hydrant, the valve member being configured to prevent water from entering the hydrant by sealing an opening (the opening within 106 where the valve is located in Figure 3) to the hydrant and the valve retainer configured to maintain a position of the valve member when the valve member is sealing the opening to the hydrant, as discussed in the rejection below.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument that the Morrow reference does not teach a housing configured to form a portion of an operating stem of the hydrant, is not persuasive, since Morrow teaches a housing (at 118) configured to form a portion (the lower portion of 118) of an operating stem (118 and the upper pieces attached to 118, within 102 and 104) of the hydrant. As shown below, 130 vein contacts and is within 120, 120 is connected to 108 and 108 is connected to 110, as shown above.
Applicant’s argument that Morrow fails to disclose a “vein connected to the housing”, is not persuasive, since Morrow teaches vein 124 connected to the housing 118 as clearly shown in the Figure below. In other areas toward the top of the housing, since the vein is connected to other areas that are connected to housing 118, therefore the vein is connected to the housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
623
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Since applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive, this action has been made Final.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, species IV in the reply filed on 2/19/2025 has been acknowledged.
Applicant’s argument that the cancellation of the prior claims renders the restriction moot, is not persuasive, since the inventions in the new claims are the same as the prior claims, that is, the new claim limitations are the same as the previous claim limitations, with only different numbering in the same order, and the limitation in now new claim 25 of “passage” was previously “channel” in prior claim 1, which is structurally being interpreted in the same manner. The remaining claims 26-45 have the same limitations in the same order as the prior claims 2-13 and 18-24. Therefore, the restriction requirement is maintained and claims 26-28,30, and 33-40 are withdrawn in the same manner as the prior withdrawn claims 2-4,9-13,and 18-20, now deleted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2026 and 1/8/2026 were filed prior to the mailing date of the mailing of this action. The submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/20/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, recites the limitation, “within-but not itself include-each”, should be changed to - - within, but not itself include, each - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 25, 29, 31, 32 and 41-43, 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Morrow et al. (US 10,317,384).
Regarding claim 25, Morrow et al. disclose a sensing device (120,134) for a hydrant (50, see Fig. 3) in a fluid distribution system, the sensing device comprising:
a housing (at 118) configured to form a portion (the lower portion of 118) of an operating stem (118 and the upper pieces attached to 118, within 102 and 104) of the hydrant;
a vein (124, see Fig. 3 and col. 5, lns. 33-59, wired connection 124; data signal provided by … “USB”, the outer jacket of the USB cable being considered as the vein, the vein/jacket having 3 inner data jacketed wires with copper inner wiring (see below)) connected to the housing, the vein defining a passage (the space within the vein that surrounds the inner data jacketed wires) extending from a lower end (the lower end in the passage) of the vein to an upper end (the upper end in the passage) of the vein;
the vein configured to be received “within-but not itself include-each” of a valve member (110) and a valve retainer (108) of a valve (110,108) of the hydrant, the valve member being configured to prevent water from entering the hydrant by sealing an opening (the opening within 106 where the valve is located in Figure 3) to the hydrant and the valve retainer configured to maintain a position of the valve member when the valve member is sealing the opening to the hydrant, and
a sensor (120) comprising a first sensing element and a second sensing element (multiple elements 134 shown in Fig. 5), the sensor received at least partly within the passage (the inherent opening in the valve, col.6, lns. 32-46) and configured to measure at least two properties of a fluid distributed by the fluid distribution system, the fluid received within the passage (col.6, lns. 32-46; col.6, lns.61- col.7, lns. 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
479
1039
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
559
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Morrow et al. disclose the sensor comprises: a housing (120); and a sensing probe (one of the sensors at 134) extending from the housing (as shown in Fig. 5), the sensing probe comprising a sensing element (the distal end tip of 134) configured to measure at least one of the at least two properties of the fluid.
Regarding claim 31, Morrow et al. disclose the sensing element is a temperature sensing element (col.10,lns. 26-36; col.6, lns.61- col.7, lns. 8).
Regarding claim 32, Morrow et al. disclose the sensor further comprises a pressure sensing element (col.6, lns.61- col.7, lns. 8).
Regarding claim 41, Morrow et al. disclose the first sensing element is received within the passage (130, col.6, lns. 32-46) of the vein, as shown in Figure 5 (col.6, lns. 37-40).
Regarding claim 42, Morrow et al. disclose the second sensing element is received within the passage (130, col.6, lns. 22-46) of the vein, as shown in Figure 5 (col.6, lns. 37-40).
Regarding claim 43, Morrow et al. disclose each of the first sensing element and the second sensory element is received within the passage (130) of the vein, as shown in Figure 5 (col.6, lns. 37-40).
Regarding claim 45, Morrow et al. disclose the passage extends in a direction that is configured to be parallel to a stem axis of the operating stem
PNG
media_image5.png
1179
915
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow et al. '384 in view of Susko (US 9170163).
Regarding claim 44, Morrow et al. disclose the second sensing element (134, col. 6, lns. 46, “one or more sensors 134”, it is further noted that the sensors may be provided at a variety of locations, col. 6, lns. 32-34), although are silent to this second sensing element being contained within the sensing probe.
Susko teaches the use multiple sensors (110,112,116) contained within the sensing probe (1,3).
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 device of Morrow et al. as taught by Susko to have the second sensing element being contained within the sensing probe, in order to provide a more accurate and real-time determination and calculation of the parameters being measured (Susko, col. 4, lns. 15-27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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) Form at Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights