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 § 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 (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 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, 2, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ford (AU2013203850 alternately US 2010/0170452). Ford discloses a heater (10) for a pool or a spa, the heater includes a housing (62), an outlet (23) disposed in the housing, the outlet in fluid communication with the pool or the spa, a first dosing mechanism (94) (SEE Figure 14) designed to meter an amount of a waste condensate provided to the pool or the spa, wherein the water condensate alters a pH value of water of the pool or the spa (SEE page 5, line 6 – page 6, line 14), and a controller (implicitly taught on page 13, lines 6-9) in electrical communication with the heater, wherein the controller is designed to control the first dosing mechanism to provide at least a portion of the water condensate to the pool or the spa via the outlet (page 5, line 6 – page 6, line 14). In re claim 2, Ford implicitly discloses evidence of a measurement device to monitor a pH value of the condensate generated by the heater (page 5, line 6 – page 6, line 14). In re claim 5, Ford discloses that the heater is a condensing heater (condensation is a byproduct of water flowing through a heat exchanger being heated by burner gas). In re claim 6, Ford discloses a waste condensate collection mechanism (page 6, lines 1-2) capable of storing at least a portion of the condensate prior to delivery of the condensate to the pool or spa. In re claim 8, Ford further discloses a drain (90) capable of directing condensate away from the heater. In re claim 16, Ford discloses a heater system for a pool or a spa including a heater (10) provided with a housing (62), an outlet (23) coupled to the housing, the outlet in fluid communication with the pool or the spa, a collection mechanism (SEE page 6, lines 1-2) in fluid communication with the outlet, the collection mechanism designed to collect waste condensate generated by the heater during operation and a controller (as evidenced by page 13, lines 6-27) in electrical communication with the heater (inherent), and is capable of directing a portion of the waste condensate from the collection mechanism to the pool or spa via the outlet (SEE page 6, line 22-24), such that the waste condensate alters the pH value of the water in the pool or spa (SEE page 5, line 6 – page 6, line 14). In re claim 17, Ford further discloses a first dosing mechanism (94) (SEE Figure 14) capable of metering an amount of water condensate provided to the pool or the spa. In re claim 19, Ford discloses a collection mechanism capable of retaining up to about 10 gallons of the condensate (interpreted as any amount from approx. 0 to 10 gallons, Ford discloses structure capable of meeting this range). In re claim 20, Ford implicitly discloses that the collection mechanism is exterior to the housing of the heater (SEE page 6, lines 19-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
Claims 3-4, 7 and 18 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that claim 1 recites “a controller in electrical communication with the heater, wherein the controller is designed to control the first dosing mechanism” and summarizes that a controller is both 1) in electrical communication with the heater and 2) designed to control the first dosing mechanism. The applicant argues that Ford only discloses a controller that is in communication with the heater alone, however as previously addressed in the office action, the examiner has taken the position that the controller having an association with the dosing mechanism is “implicitly” taught on page 13, lines 6-9 (as per AU2013203850). The examiner further directs the applicants attention to page 6, lines 10-14, specifically, “In an alternative embodiment, the condensate is stored and said condensate duct forms part of dosing apparatus for selectively directing metered amounts of condensate into the pool water at any suitable location” and further in claim 18, “A water heater according to claim 11 including a dosing apparatus for storing and selectively directing metered amounts of condensate into the water at any suitable location”. The fact that the dosing apparatus is capable of storing and selectively directing metered amounts (ie: a controlled amounts) of condensate would suggest that there is some level of automation/controlling occurring within the apparatus or at least that its operation is not arbitrary. Furthermore, the fact that Ford only teaches a single controller (70) would have suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the art that there would be an electrical connection between said controller and said dosing apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success, in this case selectively directing a controlled amount of condensate, since it would be commonly known that a controller would be capable of multiple sets of directions and thus not being strictly limited by communicating with just the heater’s burner and fan assembly; therefore the applicants argument that Ford’s condensate dosing unit could conceivably be controlled by a device separate from controller 70 is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY A WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights