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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/6/25 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 14-16, and 18-23 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/8/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 14-16, and 18-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 3, 5-6, 10-11, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB 20190145661 to Gardner et al. (Gardner).
Regarding claim 1, Gardner teaches a structure having a pan shape (402, Figure 12) and configured to at least partially insert into a bottom pan of a fluid heater (this pan can be inserted into a bottom pan of a fluid heater dependent on the size and shape of the bottom pan of the fluid heater); a fluid removing portion disposed within the structure and comprising a wicking material (1000 is a wicking tube and the orifice shown in Figure 12 can be considered a fluid removing portion), the fluid removing portion configured to transport water from the structure to at least one leak sensor (both perform this function); and the at least one leak sensor configured to detect the fluid transported from the structure by the fluid removing portion (Paragraphs 0058 and 0059 and Figure 12).
Regarding claim 3, Gardner teaches wherein the wicking material forms a ring along a perimeter of the structure (shown in at least Figure 10 as well as 4, 9, 13, and 14).
Regarding claims 5 and 21, Gardner teaches a port comprising one or more receptacles; and a plug having one or more prongs, each of the one or more prongs being configured to extend into a corresponding one of the one or more receptacles and contact the water removing portion, the plug being in electrical communication with the at least one leak sensor (306, Figure 3 and Paragraph 0061 disclose a plug and a plug would have one or more prongs).
Regarding claim 6, Gardner teaches wherein the structure comprises one or more attachment structures configured to retain the fluid removing portion at a predetermined height (channel 1206 is an attachment structure configured to retain the wick).
Regarding claim 10, Gardner teaches wherein the fluid removing portion extends along an entire inner perimeter of the structure (shown in at least Figure 10 as well as 4, 9, 13, and 14).
Regarding claim 11, Gardner teaches wherein the fluid removing portion is spaced apart from a bottom of the structure (shown in at least Figure 10 as well as 4, 9, 13, and 14).
Regarding claim 20, this is taught by claims 1, 3, and 11.
Regarding claim 22, Gardner teaches the wicking material is disposed within the structure (shown in Figures 4, 9, 10, 13, and 14).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner in view of U.S. PGPUB20090284382 to Hill (Hill).
Regarding claim 4, Gardner is silent on wherein the wicking material is substantially flat.
Hill teaches wherein the wicking material is substantially flat (118 and/or 120, Figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gardner with the teachings of Hill to provide wherein the wicking material is substantially flat. Doing so would be a simple change in shape and/or would allow the wicking material to be cover more surface area without taking up as much space.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner in view of U.S. PGPUB 20210190625 to Weitherspoon et al. (Witherspoon).
Regarding claim 2, Gardner is silent on wherein the wicking material in electric communication with the at least one leak sensor is in electric communication with the at least one leak sensor.
Weitherspoon teaches wherein the fluid removing portion comprises a wicking material in electric communication with the at least one leak sensor (Paragraphs 0036-0039), and wherein the at least one leak sensor does not extend along a length of the wicking material (Paragraphs 0037-0038 disclose the wicking portion extending and transporting fluid to the sensor indicating the sensor does not extend along a length of the wicking material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gardner with the teachings of Weitherspoon to provide wherein the wicking material in electric communication with the at least one leak sensor is in electric communication with the at least one leak sensor. Doing so would provide an equivalent alternative sensor that performs the same function. Gardner discloses using an alternative sensor in Paragraph 0058.
Regarding claim 7, Gardner is silent on wherein a top surface of a bottom of the structure slopes downwardly in a radially outward direction.
Weitherspoon teaches wherein a top surface of a bottom of the structure slopes downwardly in a radially outward direction (shown in Figures 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gardner with the teachings of Weitherspoon to provide wherein a top surface of a bottom of the structure slopes downwardly in a radially outward direction. Doing so would direct water towards the sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Gardner is silent on wherein the structure comprises an upwardly protruding mound located proximate a center of the structure.
Weitherspoon teaches wherein the structure comprises an upwardly protruding mound located proximate a center of the structure (shown in Figures 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gardner with the teachings of Weitherspoon to provide wherein the structure comprises an upwardly protruding mound located proximate a center of the structure. Doing so would direct water towards the sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Gardner is silent on wherein the structure comprises one or more apertures extending through a bottom of the structure, the one or more apertures configured to permit water to pass from an exterior surface of the bottom of the structure to an interior surface of the bottom of the structure.
Weitherspoon teaches wherein the structure comprises one or more apertures extending through a bottom of the structure, the one or more apertures configured to permit water to pass from an exterior surface of the bottom of the structure to an interior surface of the bottom of the structure (203 or the hole in the middle shown on both the top and bottom of the structure in Figures 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gardner with the teachings of Weitherspoon to provide wherein the fluid removing portion comprises one or more apertures extending through a bottom of the structure, the one or more apertures configured to permit water to pass from an exterior surface of the bottom of the structure to an interior surface of the bottom of the structure. Doing so would direct water towards the sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 and 18-19 are allowed.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does disclose the bottom pan.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762