DETAILED ACTION
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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saidi (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0275011), and further in view of Mincher (U.S. Patent Number 8,913,955).
With respect to claim 1, Saidi discloses and illustrates a water sensor location verification system comprising: a water sensor (104) configured to generate one or more signals indicative of a presence of water (see at least paragraph [0024]); a sensor locator (309; see at least paragraph [0049]), the sensor locator configured to be coupled to a support surface configured to be removably coupled to the water sensor to form a sensor/locator pairing (Saidi doesn’t explicitly teach this feature. However, the sensor 104 is disclosed to be mounted to the branch of the water flow system. It has to be mounted in some form or fashion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize some sort of support surface and subsequent matching mount in order to properly secure the sensors. A possible motivation is to be able to replace a faulty sensor without having to replace the entire branch of the water system.). Saidi does not disclose a pairing verification circuit configured to generate a pairing notification indicative of a status of the sensor/locator pairing. However, Mincher discloses a device specifically for pairing of two devices that generates a pairing notification that indicates the status of the two devices (see at least Figure 2 of Mincher). While Saidi discloses a means to detect sensors, there is no indication of a pairing of the sensor to the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the pairing verification system of Mincher with the system of Saidi as the pairing system of Mincher can be used as the verification system of Saidi. This would provide a very reliable way to ensure the sensors are connected to the system.
With respect to claim 2. The water sensor location verification system of claim 1, wherein the pairing verification circuit comprises a normally closed circuit is deemed as disclosed as the magnet sensing system of Mincher discloses magnetic proximity type sensors which are typically closed until placed into proximity to each other.
With respect to claim 3, the water sensor location verification system of claim 1, wherein the pairing verification circuit comprises one or more magnets coupled to one of the water sensors or the sensor locator and one or more magnet sensors coupled to the other of the water sensor or the sensor locator is illustrated in at least Figure 2 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 4, the water sensor location verification system of claim 3, wherein the magnetic sensor comprises a Hall effect sensor is disclosed in at least column 3, lines 23 through 28 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 5, the water sensor location verification system of claim 3, wherein the pairing verification circuit is configured to determine the status of the sensor/locator pairing based, at least in part, on the presence of the magnet is disclosed in column 2, lines 1 though 29 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 6, the water sensor location verification system of claim 3, wherein the pairing verification circuit is configured to determine the status of the sensor/locator pairing based, at least in part, on a strength of a magnetic field detected by the magnetic sensor is disclosed in column 2, lines 1 though 29 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 7, the water sensor location verification system of claim 1, wherein the pairing verification circuit comprises one or more magnets coupled to the sensor locator and one or more magnet sensors coupled to the water sensor is illustrated in at least Figure 2 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 8, the water sensor location verification system of claim 7, wherein the one or more magnets coupled to the sensor locator are factory preset is disclosed in at least column 3, lines 9-22 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 9, the water sensor location verification system of claim 7, wherein the one or more magnets coupled to the sensor locator are user definable is disclosed in at least column 3, lines 9-22 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 10, the water sensor location verification system of claim 7, wherein the sensor locator includes a mounting plate configured to be secured to the support surface, the references do not explicitly teach this feature. However, the sensor 104 of Saidi is disclosed to be mounted to the branch of the water flow system. It has to be mounted in some form or fashion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize some sort of support surface and subsequent matching mount in order to properly secure the sensors.
With respect to claim 11, the water sensor location verification system of claim 10, wherein the mounting plate includes one or more mounting apertures configured to receive one or more fasteners to secure the sensor locator to the support surface, the references do not explicitly teach this feature. However, the sensor 104 of Saidi is disclosed to be mounted to the branch of the water flow system. It has to be mounted in some form or fashion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize some sort of support surface and subsequent matching mount in order to properly secure the sensors.
With respect to claim 12, the water sensor location verification system of claim 10, wherein the sensor locator further includes at least one sidewall extending outwardly from a bottom region of the mounting plate, the at least one sidewall defining a base configured to support the water sensor the references do not explicitly teach this feature. However, the sensor 104 of Saidi is disclosed to be mounted to the branch of the water flow system. It has to be mounted in some form or fashion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize some sort of support surface and subsequent matching mount in order to properly secure the sensors.
With respect to claim 13, the water sensor location verification system of claim 12, wherein the water sensor includes one or more water detection probes for the detection of the presence of water (104a through 104f), and wherein the base further includes one or more sensor apertures configured to receive a portion of the one or more water detection probes when the water sensor is coupled to the sensor locator, the references do not explicitly teach this feature. However, the sensors 104a-f of Saidi are disclosed to each be mounted to a branch of the water flow system. Each sensor has to be mounted in some form or fashion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize some sort of support surface and subsequent matching mount in order to properly secure the sensors to the fluid branches of the system.
With respect to claim 14, the water sensor location verification system of claim 10, wherein the one or more magnets are coupled to the mounting plate is disclosed in at least is disclosed in column 2, lines 1 though 29 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 15, the water sensor location verification system of claim 1, wherein the pairing verification circuit comprises a plurality of magnets coupled to one of the water sensors or the sensor locator and one or more magnet sensors coupled to the other of the water sensor or the sensor locator is disclosed in column 2, lines 1 though 29 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 16, the water sensor location verification system of claim 1, wherein the pairing verification circuit comprises a plurality of magnets coupled to one of the water sensor or the sensor locator and a plurality of magnet sensors coupled to the other of the water sensor or the sensor locator, wherein each magnet corresponds to a single magnetic sensor when the water sensor is coupled to the sensor locator is illustrated in at least Figure 2 of Mincher and is disclosed in column 2, lines 1 though 29 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 17, the water sensor location verification system of claim 1, further comprising communication circuity to transmit a signal including data representative to the pairing notification is disclosed in at least column 4, lines 56-61 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 18, the water sensor location verification system of claim 17, wherein the signal further includes data representative to a location of the sensor/locator pairing is disclosed in at least is disclosed in at least column 4, lines 38-22 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 19, the water sensor location verification system of claim 1, wherein at the pairing notification includes a local pairing notification configured to allow a user to determine the status of the sensor/locator pairing is disclosed in at least column 5, lines 6-24 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 20, a water sensor configured to be removably coupled to a specific sensor locator (see at least paragraph [0003] of Saidi) to form a sensor/locator pairing, the specific sensor locator being secured to a support surface at a specific location (see at least paragraph [0003] of Saidi with respect to a specific location. Saidi doesn’t explicitly teach the feature support surface feature. However, the sensor 104 is disclosed to be mounted to the branch of the water flow system. It has to be mounted in some form or fashion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize some sort of support surface and subsequent matching mount in order to properly secure the sensors. A possible motivation is to be able to replace a faulty sensor without having to replace the entire branch of the water system), wherein the water sensor comprising: circuitry configured to generate one or more signals indicative of a presence of water (see at least paragraph [0024] of Saidi). Saidi does not disclose a pairing verification circuit comprising one or more magnet sensors configured to detect one or more magnet associated with the sensor locator, the paring verification circuit configured to generate a pairing notification indicative of a status of the sensor/locator pairing based on, at least in part, the detection of the one or more magnets, wherein the pairing verification circuit is a normally closed circuit when the water sensor is coupled to the specific sensor locator. However, Mincher discloses a device comprising one or more magnet sensors configured to detect one or more magnet associated with the sensor locator, the paring verification circuit configured to generate a pairing notification indicative of a status of the sensor/locator pairing based on, at least in part, the detection of the one or more magnets (see at least Figure 2 of Mincher). While Saidi discloses a means to detect sensors, there is no indication of a pairing of the sensor to the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the pairing verification system of Mincher with the system of Saidi as the pairing system of Mincher can be used as the verification system of Saidi. This would provide a very reliable way to ensure the sensors are connected to the system.
With respect to claim 21, the water sensor of claim 20, wherein the magnetic sensor comprises a Hall effect sensor is disclosed in at least column 3, lines 23 through 28 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 22, the water sensor of claim 20, wherein the pairing verification circuit is configured to determine the status of the sensor/locator pairing based, at least in part, on the presence of the one or more magnets is disclosed in at least column 3, lines 23 through 28 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 23, the water sensor of claim 20, wherein the pairing verification circuit is configured determine the status of the sensor/locator pairing based, at least in part, on a strength of magnetic field detected by the one or more magnetic sensors is disclosed in column 2, lines 1 though 29 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 24, the water sensor of claim 20, further comprising communication circuity to transmit a signal including data representative to the pairing notification is disclosed in at least column 3, lines 23 through 28 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 25, the water sensor of claim 24, wherein the signal further includes data representative to a location of the sensor/locator pairing is disclosed in at least column 4, lines 38 through 45 of Mincher.
With respect to claim 26, the water sensor location verification system of claim 20, wherein the pairing notification includes a local pairing notification configured to allow a user to determine the status of the sensor/locator pairing is disclosed in at least column 4, lines 38 through 45 of Mincher.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, the Applicant argues that Saidi doesn’t teach "the sensor locator configured to be coupled to a support surface and configured to be removably coupled to the water sensor to form a sensor/locator pairing," and that The Office appears to be relying on inherency for the acknowledged missing features.
The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant’s argument of inherency would indicate a 35 USC 102 rejection, but that’s not what is given. The Examiner agrees that it is not inherent to that the water sensor would be removably coupled. However, in order to not have to remove an entire pipe section or the entire system if a sensor were to fail, it would be obvious to make the sensor removable, so that you can replace just a single faulty sensor. Therefore, it would be obvious to make it removable and thus the Applicant’s argument of inherency is not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would not modify Saidi in view of Mincher. Notably, Mincher is generally directed to "systems and methods for initiating the establishment of a communication link between two devices." Mincher discloses " devices and methods for initiating the pairing between two devices based on their mutually detected proximity to one another." Notably, the problem addressed by Mincher is entirely different than the one addressed by independent claim 1 (e.g., how to establish a communication link between two devices without manual user intervention).
The Examiner disagrees. First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Second, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., how to establish a communication link between two devices without manual user intervention) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are not persuasive and the rejection of claims 1-19 are being maintained. No arguments were given for any of claims 2-19, so the rejections of said claims are deemed to be proper.
With respect to claim 20, Applicant argues that as noted above, Saidi does not teach or suggest a water sensor configured to be removably coupled to a sensor locator configured to be coupled to a support surface. Applicant further submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would not modify Saidi in view of Mincher. To this end, Mincher does not have anything to do with a water sensor location verification system as recited in independent claim 20.
The Examiner disagrees. As an initial matter, the arguments against Saidi lacking a teaching of a removable sensor and the arguments about the communication link of Mincher and Mincher being attacked individually in general were addressed above and would apply here as well. With respect to the sensors being located at a specific location, Saidi discloses in at least paragraph [0003] :” The centralized water detection system may include a plurality of address modules connected to a plurality of sensors for assigning an address/identifier to each sensor.” This would indicate that each sensor has a specific location that is recognized and each sensor is coupled to a specific sensor locator, which are the limitations added to claim 20. Therefore, the prior art discloses these features as well and thus the arguments to their addition being novel is not persuasive and the rejection of claims 20-26 are being maintained. No arguments were given for any of claims 21-26, so the rejections of said claims are deemed to be proper.
Conclusion
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 RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
RODNEY T. FRANK
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
January 21, 2026