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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, please amend “Aquatic total” in line 1 to “An aquatic
Claims 2-11, please amend “System according” to “The aquatic total alkalinity measurement system
Claim 3, please amend “potential sensor (135)” to “potential sensor
Claim 6, please amend “connected to the opening” to “connected to the slotted opening”.
Claim 8: “an aquatic total alkalinity value” to “[[an]] the aquatic total alkalinity value”; “a variation in measured pH” to “[[a]] the variation in measured pH”.
Claim 12, please amend “Aquatic total” in line 1 to “An aquatic the aquatic total alkalinity value of the body of water”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 5, and 12 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the boundary layer” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “the pH probe is configured to be positioned in a low-volume body of water” is unclear as “low-volume” is relative terminology. Thus, claim 5 is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “the boundary layer” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PoolCop (PoolCop Evolution: Installer and User Manual, PCFR, 2020) in view of Owsianka (An Automated Instrument for Measurement of Total Alkalinity in Seawater: PhD Thesis, University of Southampton, 2014).
Regarding Claim 1, PoolCop teaches a measurement system (PoolCop Evolution [title, page 1]; whose measurements include pH [entire section 3.5.3 pH Control, page 34]), comprising:
a pH probe (pH sensor [first para. of 3.5.3 pH Control, page 34]),
a probe controller (valve data unit [page 18]),
a pH measurement variation detection device (proportional-integral pH controller [page 34]),
the limitations of the pH probe “configured to measure pH at the boundary layer of a body of water”; the probe controller “configured to sequentially activate and deactivate, or connect and disconnect, the pH probe”; and the pH measurement variation detection device “configured to detect a variation of pH measurement in a sequence of pH probe measurements” are functional limitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the pH probe can be placed in the valve data unit to measure pH at the boundary layer of water (see illustration in Section 3.5.2 Installing the Water Condition Sensor, page 32); the valve data unit automatically measures pH every 15 minutes after each filtration cycle; the pH can also be manually measured [Section 3.5.3 pH Control, page 34]. Regarding pH variations, pH measurements are conducted and alerts are issued if the pH is out of normal range [Section 3.5.3 pH Control, page 34]. Thus, the pH probe is capable of measuring the pH at the boundary layer of a body of water; the valve data unit is capable of sequentially activate and deactivate, or connect and disconnect, the pH probe; and the pH controller in the valve data unit is capable of detect a variation of pH measurement in a sequence of pH probe measurements.
PoolCop is silent on the system is an “aquatic total alkalinity measurement system” and “an aquatic total alkalinity value determination device, configured to determine an aquatic total alkalinity value of the body of water as a function of the pH measurement variation detected”.
Owsianka teaches an automated instrument for measurement of total alkalinity in seawater (title), and teaches an aquatic total alkalinity measurement system (instrument for total alkalinity analysis, schematic shown in Figure 4-3, page 114]) and an aquatic total alkalinity value determination device (PC running LabVIEW software [page 114]).
PoolCop and Owsianka are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of apparatus for measuring water parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system of PoolCop to be an aquatic total alkalinity measurement system with an aquatic total alkalinity value determination device, as taught by Owsianka, as total alkalinity is a pivotal water quality parameter, such as for seawater (Owsianka, [first para. page iii]); the limitation of an aquatic total alkalinity value determination device is “configured to determine an aquatic total alkalinity value of the body of water as a function of the pH measurement variation detected” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the aquatic total alkalinity value determination device of Owsianka uses pH monitoring to determine total alkalinity (Section 4.6.2 Total Alkalinity Determination with the RGB-PD, pages 126-127; note that Equation 3.5 further illustrates correlation between pH and total alkalinity [page 96]). Thus, the PC of modified PoolCop is capable of performing the claimed limitation above.
Regarding Claim 4, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system according to claim 1;
The limitation in which the pH probe controller “is configured to sequentially activate and deactivate, or connect and disconnect, the pH probe in a stagnant body of water” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, measuring the pH using the pH probe occurs after stopping the filtration pump, and that the pH is automatically measured after the end of each filtration cycle (PoolCop, Section 3.5.3 pH control, page 34). Thus, the pH probe controller of modified PoolCop is capable of performing the claimed limitation above.
Regarding Claim 7, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system according to claim 1, and teaches a remote computing device comprising the aquatic total alkalinity value determination device (as taught in the claim 1 rejection above, Owsianka uses a computer to determine total alkalinity (Owsianka, PC running LabVIEW software [page 114]) and a communication means between the pH measurement variation device and the aquatic total alkalinity value determination device (as detailed in Section 4.3.2, the PC running LabVIEW software provides overall control and includes extraction of the RGB-PD data [para. on page 114]; as detailed in Section 4.6.2, pH data is provided to the computer for data manipulation to determine total alkalinity, such as in Figure 4-8 [pages 126-127]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system according to claim 1.
PoolCop is silent on the aquatic total alkalinity value determination device operates an algorithm and/or a trained machine learning model to associate an aquatic total alkalinity value with a variation in measured pH.
Owsianka teaches in which the aquatic total alkalinity value determination device operates an algorithm to associate an aquatic total alkalinity value with a variation in measured pH (for example, total alkalinity titrations based on pH are seen in Equations 3.4 – 3.6, pages 95-96).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microcomputer of modified PoolCop to include an algorithm to associate an aquatic total alkalinity value with a variation in measured pH, as taught by Owsianka, as total alkalinity is a pivotal water quality parameter, such as for seawater (Owsianka, [first para. page iii]);
Regarding Claim 9, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system according to claim 1;
the limitation in which the pH probe “is configured to measure the pH of the body of water in a swimming pool” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the pH probe in the PoolCop setup is targeted for measuring the pH for a swimming pool (see Section 2.4.1 Routine Pool Maintenance, page 13; pH Control for pool water is included [pH Control top of page 19]). Thus, the pH probe of modified PoolCop is capable of performing the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 10, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system according to claim 1;
the limitation in which the pH probe is “configured to measure the pH of the body of water in a pipe” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, as the pH probe in the PoolCop setup is targeted for measuring the pH for a swimming pool (see Section 2.4.1 Routine Pool Maintenance, page 13; pH Control for pool water is included [pH Control top of page 19]), the pH sensor can be reasonably be placed in a pipe. Thus, the pH probe of modified PoolCop is capable of performing the claimed function above.
Regarding Claim 12, PoolCop teaches a measurement method (PoolCop Evolution [title, page 1]; whose measurements include pH [entire section 3.5.3 pH Control, page 34]), comprising:
a step of inserting, in a body of water, a pH probe (pH sensor [first para. of 3.5.3 pH Control, page 34], which is inserted into valve data unit [3.5.2 Installing the Water Condition Sensor, page 32]) configured to measure pH at the boundary layer of a body of water (pH is automatically measured every 15 minutes at the end of each filtration cycle [first para., page 34]),
a step of sequential activation and deactivation of the pH probe (pH is automatically measured every 15 minutes at the end of each filtration cycle [first para. page 34]),
a step of detection of pH measurement variation, to detect a variation of pH measurement in a sequence of pH probe measurements (pH is automatically measured every 15 minutes at the end of each filtration cycle [first para., page 34]; and pH can be controlled based on a designated setpoint [section 5.4.2 pH Control [page 87]).
PoolCop is silent on the method is an “aquatic total alkalinity measurement method” and “a step of determination of an aquatic total alkalinity value, to determine an aquatic total alkalinity value of the body of water as a function of the pH measurement variation detected”.
Owsianka teaches an automated instrument for measurement of total alkalinity in seawater (title), and teaches an aquatic total alkalinity measurement method (instrument to measure total alkalinity analysis, schematic shown in Figure 4-3, page 114]; general method described in Section 4.6.2 Total alkalinity determination with the RGB-PD, pages 126-130) and a step of determination of an aquatic total alkalinity value, to determine an aquatic total alkalinity value of the body of water as a function of the pH measurement variation detected (pH monitoring to determine total alkalinity [Section 4.6.2 Total Alkalinity Determination with the RGB-PD, pages 126-127]; note that Equation 3.5 further illustrates correlation between pH and total alkalinity [page 96]).
PoolCop and Owsianka are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of methods for measuring water parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement method of PoolCop to be an aquatic total alkalinity measurement method by including a step of determination of an aquatic total alkalinity value, to determine an aquatic total alkalinity value of the body of water as a function of the pH measurement variation detected, as taught by Owsianka, as total alkalinity is a pivotal water quality parameter that dictates response of natural waters (Owsianka, [abstract]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PoolCop and Owsianka, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of PoolCop Genesis (PoolCop Genesis; PCFR, 2021).
Regarding Claim 2, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity
measurement system of claim 1.
PoolCop is silent on which comprises a floating reference device in proximity
of the pH probe.
PoolCop Genesis teaches more information on monitoring a pool using a PoolCop embodiment (entire section Why PoolCop Genesis?, page 1), and teaches a floating reference device in proximity of the pH probe (“Floating Reference” for pH and ORP sensor [PoolCop Genesis table, top of page 2]).
Modified PoolCop and PoolCop Genesis are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of apparatus for measuring water samples. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system of modified PoolCop by adding a floating reference device in proximity to the pH probe, as taught by PoolCop Genesis, as using a floating reference along with a pH and ORP sensor is an example embodiment that allows for functions including pH control (PoolCop Genesis, [Functions, bottom page 2]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PoolCop, Owsianka, and PoolCop Genesis, as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of pHionics (pH Electrode Guide, pHionics Water Quality Sensors, 2020, https://www.phionics.com/2020/10/20/ph-electrode-guide/).
Regarding Claim 3, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system according the claim 2, and teaches in which the pH probe comprises the floating reference device (“Floating Reference” for pH and ORP sensor [PoolCop Genesis table, top of page 2]).
PoolCop is silent on an oxidation-reduction potential sensor and a microporous glass bulb membrane.
PoolCop Genesis teaches an oxidation-reduction potential sensor (ORP sensor [PoolCop Genesis table, top of page 2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pH probe of modified PoolCop by adding an oxidation-reduction potential sensor, as taught by PoolCop Genesis, as a combined pH and ORP sensor can be utilized for pH and water disinfection (PoolCop Genesis, [Functions, bottom page 2]).
Modified PoolCop is silent on the pH probe comprises “a microporous glass bulb membrane”.
pHionics teaches general information on pH electrodes (first para. page 2), and teaches the pH probe comprises a microporous glass bulb membrane (glass pH electrode can use a bulb made of pH-sensitive glass [glass electrode para. on page 4]).
Modified PoolCop and pHionics are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of apparatus for measuring pH. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pH probe of modified PoolCop to comprise a microporous glass bulb membrane, as taught by pHionics, as a pH electrode with a bulb made of pH-sensitive glass is highly accurate and an excellent response-time (pHionics, [para. page 4]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PoolCop and Owsianka, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of CYA680 (Technical Information CYA680 Flow Assembly for the Life Sciences and Chemical Industry, Endress+Hauser, 2017).
Regarding Claim 5, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system according to claim 1.
PoolCop is silent on the pH probe is configured to be positioned in a low-volume body of water.
CYA680 teaches a flow assembly (title), and teaches a flow cell used for measuring pH of a liquid (see dimensions section of mechanical construction along with diagram on page 4). As illustrated in the figure on page 2, the flow cell includes a place for a pH sensor along with a flow cell for liquid to travel through.
Modified PoolCop and CYA680 are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of apparatus for measuring pH. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pH probe of modified PoolCop to be located in a flow cell, as taught by CYA680, as measuring pH in a low-volume of water allows for fast measurements of small sample volumes (CYA680, [Your Benefits Section, bottom page 1]); the limitation in which the pH probe “is configured to be positioned in a low-volume body of water” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the pH probe in a flow cell is designed to measure pH in a low-volume body of liquid to increase accuracy (CYA680 Your Benefits section on page 1). Thus, the pH probe modified PoolCop is capable of performing the claimed limitation above.
Regarding Claim 6, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system according to claim 5, and teaches an analysis chamber (as taught in claim 5 rejection above, CYA680 teaches using a flow cell to measure pH [see dimensions section of mechanical construction along with diagram on page 4]), comprising an opening, a main volume connected to the opening and a recess in the main volume, the pH probe being in contact with the water in the recess (as described in the claim 5 rejection above, the measuring system figure of CYA680 teaches the flow cell has an opening for liquid [see arrows in measuring system figure], flow cell contains recess and is connected to the main liquid [recess is in flow cell 4], and the pH probe is in contact with the recess in the flow assembly).
Although Modified PoolCop does not explicitly teach the opening of the analysis chamber being “slotted”, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the opening of the flow cell to be slotted, as generally differences in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PoolCop and Owsianka, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Huoqiang (CN111348786A, English translation).
Regarding Claim 11, modified PoolCop teaches the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system according to claim 1.
PoolCop is silent on a total alkalinity regulation unit, configured to increase or decrease the total alkalinity of the body of water as a function of the measured total alkalinity value and a target total alkalinity value.
Huoqiang teaches an automatic dosing control system for alkalinity (abstract), and teaches a total alkalinity regulation unit (an automatic dosing control unit [claim 1, page 1]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aquatic total alkalinity measurement system of modified PoolCop to include a total alkalinity regulation unit, as taught by Huoqiang, as adjusting the alkalinity allows for water treatment and water softening pretreatment (Huoqiang, [first para. of Background, page 3]). The limitation “configured to increase or decrease the total alkalinity of the body of water as a function of the measured total alkalinity value and a target total alkalinity value” is a functional limitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the automatic dosing control device can remove ions such as calcium and magnesium (Huoqiang, fourth para. page 6); and sodium carbonate can be added via the dosing pump (Huoqiang, fourth para. page 6). Thus, total alkalinity regulation unit of modified PoolCop is capable of performing the claimed limitation above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795