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 .
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.
Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is vague and ambiguous as to whether the recited “sensor data…” is data which is received from the chlorine sensors which are recited in claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
In claim 4, in line 5 at the end of the claim, it is unclear whether “the received sensor data” refers back only to data from the pH sensor, or if instead, it encompasses sensor data such as that introduced in claims 1 and 2.
In claim 16, “the abnormality” (singular) is inconsistent with recitation of plural system abnormalities which follow after “one or more”.
In claim 18, it is unclear whether “to feeder tank” refers back to the same feeder tank which was introduced in claim 1 (it is suggested to insert “the” before “feeder tank”)/
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.
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 1-7 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood et al PGPUBS Document US 2016/0299096 (Greenwood) in view of Patent Publication KR102187534 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation Patent Publication (Publication ‘534), and Patent Publication KR20170142604A and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation (Publication ‘604). Paragraph numbers of the Description of the applied PGPUBS Document and Escapenet Machine translations are identified by “[ ]” symbols, and refer to specific paragraphs immediately above or preceding the “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Greenwood discloses:
A system for controlling water conditions in a swimming pool (all illustrated in figure 1 and described in [0029]), the system comprising:
a pool basin 100 for holding a volume of pool water [0029];
a main circulation pump 102 for drawing the pool water from the pool basin, delivering the pool water to a conditioning system, and returning the pool water to the pool basin [0029, lines 3-5],
wherein the conditioning system includes:
a filter 104 for removing impurities from the pool water [0029, line 4];
a chlorine sensor 108 or 616A for monitoring a chlorine concentration of the pool water [0029, lines 5-6 re sensor 108] or [0030 or 0033 re sensor 616A];
a chlorine feeder system comprising a feeder/supply tank 126 and a feeder pump 122, the feeder pump configured to deliver a concentrated chlorine solution from the feeder tank to be added to the pool water and returned to the pool basin [0029, last 6 lines].
Claim 1 differs by requiring a chlorine sensor for monitoring chlorine concentration of the concentrated chlorine solution of the chlorine feeder system.
Publication ‘534 teaches or suggests such chlorine sensor for a chlorine feeder system and discloses a chlorine feeder or injector for injecting chlorine or sodium or calcium hypochlorite for sterilizing tap water production in outdoor environments [0001-0003 and 0021], and teaches chlorine injection system 1 (figures 1-5) which includes a residual chlorine sensor 60 as a component of what is included in the chlorine injector 1 [0021-0024], such sensor configured to detect chlorine concentration from at least one point between front and rear ends of the chlorine injection point of the chlorine injector, and optionally at multiple points [0065].
The publication suggests that such sensor may detect chlorine concentration may gradually decrease during storage in the injector as it slowly self-decomposes to form chlorate, thus causing water quality to which the chlorine is injected to deteriorate and affect public health of the water users.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the swimming pool water recirculation and purification art, to have augmented the Greenwood system, by including a chlorine sensor for monitoring chlorine concentration of the concentrated chlorine solution of the chlorine feeder system, as taught by publication ‘534, in order to detect a chlorine concentration of the chlorine feeder system, accounting for it gradually decreasing during storage in the injector as it slowly self-decomposes to form chlorate, thus inherently adjusting rate of feeding or injecting to compensate to avoid causing water quality to which the chlorine is injected to deteriorate and affect public health of the water users.
Claim 1 also differs by requiring that such sensor comprise an ultraviolet (UV) absorbance type chlorine sensor.
Publication ‘604 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation teach such type sensor. Publication ‘604 teaches such type injector for measuring chlorine concentration in the form of chlorine dioxide or other chlorine compound in water used for washing and preserving of foods [0002-0003 and 0020, 0026], with [0023, 0026 and 0027 specifically teaching chlorine dioxide concentration by calculating changes in absorbance of UV rays at specific wavelengths]. Publication ‘604 states that such type of sensing enables increased and easier sensing of chlorine dioxide concentration and sensing of such concentration in real time [0026-0027].
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the swimming pool water recirculation and purification art, to have augmented the Greenwood system, by including ultraviolet (UV) absorbance type chlorine sensor, as the chlorine sensor for monitoring chlorine concentration of the concentrated chlorine solution of the chlorine feeder system, as taught by Publication ‘604 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation, in order to sense chlorine or chlorine compound concentration with a type of sensing which enables increased and easier sensing of chlorine dioxide concentration and sensing of such concentration in real time .
For claim 2, Greenwood further discloses: the system further comprising a controller, the controller configured to receive sensor data regarding the chlorine concentration of the pool water and the chlorine concentration of the concentrated chlorine solution of the chlorine feeder system, the controller further configured to control operation of one or more of the main circulation pump and the feeder pump in response to the received sensor data [0029 re a computer or other controller receiving chlorine and other sensor data and controlling pumps 120 and 122 of the system].
For claim 3, Greenwood further discloses: the system further comprising a sensor manifold comprising the chlorine sensor for monitoring the chlorine concentration of the pool water and a pH sensor for monitoring the pH level of the pool water [0028 re a plurality of sensors including pH and chlorine sensors being employed in system combinations] and [0029 re the sensors being installed in a sensor manifold 118].
For claim 4, Greenwood further discloses: the system further comprising an acid pump 120 (as illustrated in figure 1) for delivering an acidic solution to the pool water to regulate the pH level of the pool water, wherein the controller is configured to receive sensor data from the pH sensor regarding the pH level of the pool water, and wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the acid pump in response to the received sensor data [0029 and 0034 re control unit 114 and external interface 116 regarding control of the system pumps 120 and 122 and control of the acid pump].
For claim 5, Greenwood further discloses wherein the concentrated chlorine solution in the feeder tank is a calcium hypochlorite solution [0007 re such form of chlorine or “free chlorine” recommended for use by the pool industry].
For claim 6, publication ‘534 further teaches wherein the chlorine feeder chlorine sensor is in fluidic communication with a feeder tank to monitor the chlorine concentration of the chlorine feeder system by freely and continuously circulating the flow stream being monitored past the sensor (figures 1 and 2 [0010] and [0023]), Publication ‘604 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation are again relied upon for teaching to utilize a UV absorbance type chlorine sensor for such monitoring as taught above .
It would have been also obvious to have configured the Greenwood system to utilize such located chlorine sensor, as taught by publication ‘534, so as to continuously monitor the chlorine concentration of the chlorine feeder system by freely circulating the flow stream being monitored past the chlorine sensor .
For claim 7, publication ‘534 further teaches wherein the chlorine feeder chlorine sensor is in fluidic communication with an output from a feeder pump to monitor the chlorine concentration of the chlorine feeder system so as to ensure continuous circulation of the chlorine feeder system (figures 1 and 2 [0010] and [0023]), Publication ‘604 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation are again relied upon for teaching to utilize a UV absorbance type chlorine sensor for such monitoring.
It would have been also obvious to have configured the Greenwood system to utilize such located chlorine sensor, as taught by publication ‘534, so as to monitor the chlorine concentration of the chlorine feeder system by freely circulating the flow stream being monitored past the chlorine sensor so as to ensure continuous circulation of the chlorine feeder system.
For claim 13, Greenwood further discloses or suggests: wherein the system controller is configured to control operation of the feeder pump to maintain the chlorine concentration of the pool water within a range of 1 ppm to 8 ppm chlorine [0007 re pool industry recommendation to maintain chlorine concentration between 1 and 3 ppm] and [0029 re pump control] .
For claim 14, Greenwood further discloses or suggests: wherein the system controller is configured to control operation of the feeder pump to maintain the chlorine concentration of the pool water within a range of 1 ppm to 8 ppm chlorine [0007 re pool industry recommendation to maintain chlorine concentration between 1 and 3 ppm] and [0029 re pump control] .
For claim 15, publication ‘534 further teaches wherein a system controller is configured to detect an abnormality with the chlorine feeder system based on chlorine concentration readings from the feeder system chlorine sensor concerning excessive self-decomposing of the available chlorine from the chlorine source due to formation of undesirable chlorate byproduct [0006], with Publication ‘604 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation again relied upon for teaching to utilize a UV absorbance type chlorine sensor for such monitoring.
It would have been also obvious to have configured the Greenwood system controller to detect an abnormality with the chlorine feeder system based on chlorine concentration readings from the feeder system chlorine sensor, as taught by publication ‘534, to be responsive to excessive decomposing of the available free chlorine, inherently so as to take effective steps to replenish the chlorine content in the source of chlorine, so as to ensure adequate disinfection of the system.
For claim 16, Publication ‘534 further teaches wherein a system controller is configured to detect an abnormality with the chlorine feeder system that includes one or more of: an out of product event, the feeder pump malfunctioning, a clogged line, and an obstruction in the chlorine feeder system concerning excessive self-decomposing of the available chlorine from the chlorine source due to formation of undesirable chlorate byproduct [0006], thus constituting an out of produce event or imminent such event.
It would have been also obvious to have configured the Greenwood system controller to detect an abnormality with the chlorine feeder system based on chlorine concentration readings from the feeder system chlorine sensor , as taught by publication ‘534, so as to prevent total lack of availability of the injected chlorine and to be responsive to excessive decomposing of the available free chlorine, thus forecasting an imminent out-of-product event, inherently so as to take effective steps to replenish the chlorine content in the source of chlorine, so as to ensure adequate disinfection of the system..
For claim 17, Publication ‘534 further suggests wherein the chlorine feeder chlorine sensor is connected to the feeder tank via an input tubing, an output tubing, and a pump, thereby facilitating continuous monitoring of chlorine concentration in the feeder tank so as to ensure continuous circulation past the chlorine sensor (figures 1 and 2 [0010] and [0023]), Publication ‘604 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation relied upon for teaching to utilize a UV absorbance type chlorine sensor for such monitoring.
It would have been also obvious to have configured the Greenwood system to utilize such a connected chlorine sensor, as taught by publication ‘534, so as to continuously monitor the chlorine concentration of the chlorine feeder system by freely circulating the flow stream being monitored past the chlorine sensor.
For claim 18, publication ‘534 further suggests wherein the chlorine feeder chlorine sensor is connected to at an output of the feeder pump via an input tubing, and an output from the feeder tank chlorine sensor is connected to feeder tank via an output tubing to assure continuous circulation past the chlorine sensor by freely and continuously circulating the flow stream being monitored past the sensor (figures 1 and 2 [0010] and [0023]); Publication ‘604 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation again relied upon for teaching to utilize a UV absorbance type chlorine sensor for such monitoring.
It would have been also obvious to have configured the Greenwood system to utilize such a connected chlorine sensor, as taught by publication ‘534, so as to continuously monitor the chlorine concentration of the chlorine feeder system by freely circulating the flow stream being monitored past the chlorine sensor.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood et al PGPUBS Document US 2016/0299096 (Greenwood) in view of Patent Publication KR102187534 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation Patent Publication (Publication ‘534), and Patent Publication KR20170142604A and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation (Publication ‘604), as applied to claims 1-7, 9 and 13-18 above, and further in view of Allen et al patent 5,422,014 (Allen). Paragraph numbers of the Description of the applied PGPUBS Document and Escapenet Machine translations are identified by “[ ]” symbols and refer to specific paragraphs immediately above or preceding the “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 8 further differs by requiring wherein the conditioning system further includes a mixing manifold, the mixing manifold having an input fluidly connected to an output from the feeder pump, the mixing manifold having an output fluidly connected to a main recirculation line for returning the pool water to the pool basin.
Allen teaches such mixing manifold 74 and coupled input, output, feed pump 52 and main recirculation line 40/46/56/140/62 to a swimming pool water basin 32 as claimed (figures 1 and 2 illustrating the pool water conditioning system, and mixing manifold generally and column 7, lines 14-50 and column 8, lines 2-21 regarding quickly mixing circulating water with injected acid flow .
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Greenwood system, so as to include such mixing manifold, the mixing manifold having an input fluidly connected to an output from the feeder pump, the mixing manifold having an output fluidly connected to a main recirculation line for returning the pool water to the pool basin, as taught by Allen, in order to quickly mix injected chemicals including acid into the system.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood et al PGPUBS Document US 2016/0299096 (Greenwood) in view of Patent Publication KR102187534 and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation Patent Publication (Publication ‘534), and Patent Publication KR20170142604A and the accompanying Escapenet Machine Translation (Publication ‘604), as applied to claims 1-7 and 13-18 above, and further in view of Tokhtuev et al PGPUBS Document US 2009/0212236 (Tokhtuev). Paragraph numbers of the Description of the applied PGPUBS Document and Escapenet Machine translations are identified by “[ ]” symbols and refer to specific paragraphs immediately above or preceding the “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 10 further differs by requiring wherein the UV absorbance chlorine sensor comprises one or more UV light-emitting diodes (“LEDs”) configured to emit light into the concentrated chlorine solution.
Tokhtuev teaches utilizing UV detectors to detect concentration of chemicals [0008], such UV absorbance chlorine sensor comprising one or more UV light-emitting diodes (“LEDs”) configured to emit light into a concentrated solution [0053-0054 re concentrated solutions being analyzed and [0064-0066 re the sensors utilizing UV light sources including LEDs and one or more photodiodes]. Tokhtuev teaches such form of sensors facilitating controller calculation and storage of determined and specific concentrations [0065].
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan, to have utilized a UV absorbance chlorine sensor which comprises one or more UV light-emitting diodes (“LEDs”) configured to emit light into the concentrated chlorine solution, as taught by Tokhtuev, in order to facilitate controller calculation and storage of determined and specific concentrations
For claim 11, Tokhtuev further teaches or suggests wherein the one or more UV LEDs emit light within a range of wavelengths from 260 nm to 320 nm [0064-0066 re the LEDs and photodiodes transmitting wavelengths from 265 nm to 320 nm, thus within the claimed range of wavelengths, such wavelengths effective for determining concentrations of known active compounds of which concentration is being analyzed.
It would have been further obvious for the skilled artisan to have utilized such type of UV absorbance sensor features in the Greenwood system in order to determine concentrations of known active compounds of which concentration is being analyzed.
Claim 12 additionally differs by requiring wherein the UV absorbance chlorine sensor further comprises two sapphire ball lenses disposed adjacent a fluid path of the concentrated chlorine solution through the UV absorbance chlorine sensor.
Tokhtuev further teaches or suggests wherein the UV absorbance sensor further comprises two sapphire ball lenses disposed adjacent a fluid path of the concentrated solution through the UV absorbance sensor [see also 0069-0070 re use of such lenses as effective means for focusing the UV light source on a particular location in a channel].
It would have been further obvious for the skilled artisan to have utilized such sapphire ball features of a UV absorbance sensor in the Greenwood system, in order to enable the focusing of a UV light source on a particular location in a channel or other flow path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of further recitation of the system being configured wherein the sensor manifold is fluidly connected to an input fluidic line positioned to sample the pool water, the input fluidic line comprising a check valve, the sensor manifold having an output line fluidly connected to the input of the mixing manifold, wherein an output of the acid pump is fluidly connected to the output of the mixing manifold, and wherein the UV absorbance chlorine sensor has an output fluidly connected between the input and the output of the mixing manifold. In particular the prior art does not recite the clamed configuration of sensor manifold relative to mixing manifold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest , reference(s) teach(es) X
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
03/03/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773