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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (claim 1-6) in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-20 have been cancelled.
Newly added claims 21-32 include limitation corresponding to those limitation used by the Examiner to identify Species 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim(s) 1-6 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the body of claim 1 recites “the controller executes program logic for”. The claimed program logic” is interpreted software per se. Computer software is functional descriptive material; however, function descriptive material is non-statutory when claimed as descriptive material per se. When functional descriptive material is not rerecorded on some non-transitory computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Since claim 1 does not recite a machining program (i.e., software) as being recorded on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the machining program is interpreted as comprising functional descriptive material per se and non-statutory. In addition, the claimed invention is directed to detecting and controlling heating element in a software with abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a controller with a program logic (i.e., software program). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no program or software is being retrieved from a processor with a non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform program steps. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no method step of the software is being used by a machine with a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. MPEP 2106.04.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim(s) 1-6 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the body of claim 1 recites “the control electronics are adapted to detect an upper heating element activation signal”. The claimed “the control electronics” is interpreted software per se. Computer software is functional descriptive material; however, function descriptive material is non-statutory when claimed as descriptive material per se. When functional descriptive material is not rerecorded on some non-transitory computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Since claim 21 does not recite a machining program (i.e., software) as being recorded on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the machining program is interpreted as comprising functional descriptive material per se and non-statutory. In addition, the claimed invention is directed to detecting and controlling heating element in a software with abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a controller with a program logic (i.e., software program). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no program or software is being retrieved from a processor with a non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform program steps. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no method step of the software is being used by a machine with a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. MPEP 2106.04.
Claims 1-6, 21-26 and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s) “A controller for controlling reheating of a tank-style water heater having at least an upper heating element and a lower heating element, wherein: the controller is adapted to selectively permit and deny supply of electrical power to the water heater; the controller is adapted to detect an upper heating element activation signal indicating activation of the upper heating element; and the controller executes program logic for: monitoring the water heater for presence or absence of the upper heating element activation signal; responsive to detecting the presence of the upper heating element activation signal, permitting the supply of electrical power to the water heater; and responsive to detecting the absence of the upper heating element activation signal, denying the supply of electrical power to the water heater outside of a scheduled time”.
With respect to step 1, claim 1 is directed toward A controller for controlling reheating of a tank-style water heater (i.e., an apparatus), which is eligible at step 1.
With respect to set 2A, the following elements from claim 1 are considered to be abstract:
A controller for controlling reheating of a tank-style water heater having at least an upper heating element and a lower heating element (additional element),
wherein: the controller is adapted to selectively permit and deny supply of electrical power to the water heater; (additional element)
the controller is adapted to detect an upper heating element activation signal indicating activation of the upper heating element; (insignificant extra solution activity, e.g., data collection).
and “the controller executes program logic for: monitoring the water heater for presence or absence of the upper heating element activation signal; responsive to detecting the presence of the upper heating element activation signal, permitting the supply of electrical power to the water heater; and responsive to detecting the absence of the upper heating element activation signal, denying the supply of electrical power to the water heater outside of a scheduled time”, which is observation/evaluation which is a mental process; the observation/evaluation that can be performed in the human mind such as a program that can be written down with a pen and paper based on data collection – (mental process and insignificant extra-solution).
Claim 21 recite(s) “A tank-style water heater having at least an upper heating element and a lower heating element, wherein: control electronics of the water heater are adapted to selectively permit and deny supply of electrical power to the upper heating element and the lower heating element; the control electronics are adapted to detect an upper heating element activation signal indicating activation of the upper heating element; and the control electronics execute program logic for: monitoring the water heater for presence or absence of the upper heating element activation signal; responsive to detecting the presence of the upper heating element activation signal, permitting the supply of electrical power to the upper heating element; and responsive to detecting the absence of the upper heating element activation signal, denying the supply of electrical power to the upper heating element and the lower heating element outside of a scheduled time”.
With respect to step 21, claim 21 is directed toward A tank-style water heater having at least an upper heating element and a lower heating element (i.e., an apparatus), which is eligible at step 1.
With respect to set 2A, the following elements from claim 21 are considered to be abstract:
control electronics of the water heater are adapted to selectively permit and deny supply of electrical power to the upper heating element and the lower heating element; (additional element)
the control electronics are adapted to detect an upper heating element activation signal indicating activation of the upper heating element (insignificant extra solution activity, e.g., data collection); and
the control electronics execute program logic for: “monitoring the water heater for presence or absence of the upper heating element activation signal; responsive to detecting the presence of the upper heating element activation signal, permitting the supply of electrical power to the upper heating element; and responsive to detecting the absence of the upper heating element activation signal, denying the supply of electrical power to the upper heating element and the lower heating element outside of a scheduled time”, which is observation/evaluation which is a mental process; the observation/evaluation that can be performed in the human mind such as a program that can be written down with a pen and paper based on data collection – (mental process and insignificant extra-solution).
Claim(s) 27 recite(s) “A method for controlling reheating of a tank-style water heater having at least an upper heating element and a lower heating element, the method comprising: monitoring the water heater for presence or absence of the upper heating element activation signal; responsive to detecting the presence of the upper heating element activation signal, permitting the supply of electrical power to the water heater; and responsive to detecting the absence of the upper heating element activation signal, denying the supply of electrical power to the water heater outside of a scheduled time”.
With respect to step 1, claim 27 is directed toward a method for controlling reheating of a tank-style water heater (i.e., a process), which is eligible at step 1.
With respect to set 2A, the following elements from claim 27 are considered to be abstract:
A method for controlling reheating of a tank-style water heater having at least an upper heating element and a lower heating element - additional element.
the method comprising: monitoring the water heater for presence or absence of the upper heating element activation signal, (insignificant extra solution activity, e.g., data collection).
responsive to detecting the presence of the upper heating element activation signal, permitting the supply of electrical power to the water heater; and responsive to detecting the absence of the upper heating element activation signal, denying the supply of electrical power to the water heater outside of a scheduled time, which is observation/evaluation which is a mental process; the observation/evaluation that can be performed in the human mind such as a program that can be written down with a pen and paper based on data collection – (mental process and insignificant extra-solution).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mental processes and/or mathematical operations and/or certain methods of human activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea without additional computer elements and sensor which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 1-6 and 21-26 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.
Claim 1 recites “the controller is adapted to detect an upper heating element activation signal indicating activation of the upper heating element”. It is unclear as to how the controller by itself is able to detect an upper heating element activation signal without the sensor feedback. Does that mean “the controller is adapted to receive an upper heating element activation signal indicating activation of the upper heating element from a sensor”.
Claim 21 recites “the control electronics are adapted to detect an upper heating element activation signal indicating activation of the upper heating element”. It is unclear as to how the controller by itself is able to detect an upper heating element activation signal without a sensor.
Examiner’s Remark
The closest prior art is Nazir (CA 2324669 A). Nazir discloses “a controller” (25 and 70) for controlling reheating of a tank-style water heater having “at least an upper heating element” (35) and “a lower heating element” (45), wherein: “the controller is adapted to selectively permit and deny supply of electrical power to the water heater” (on pages 5-6, i.e., programmable thermostat 25 and most of time operates in a consumption mode, activating and deactivating the heating elements 35 and 45);
“the controller is adapted to detect an upper heating element activation signal indicating activation of the upper heating element” (on page 10, i.e., the micro-controller 70 will activate the heating element 35 … If the element 35 does not respond, a fault condition is assumed and micro-controller will activate the element 45 automatically. Examiner noted that “if the element 35 does not respond, a fault condition is assumed” implies no upper heating element activation signal); and “the controller executes program logic for: monitoring the water heater for presence or absence of the upper heating element activation signal” (on page 10, i.e., the micro-controller 70 will activate the heating element 35 … If the element 35 does not respond, a fault condition is assumed);
Allowable Subject Matter
The allowability cannot be determined with respect to claims 1-6 and 21-32 due to 35 USC 101 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights