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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 6/1/26 is acknowledged.
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPUB 20100116224 to Leeland (Leeland).
Regarding claim 1, Leeland teaches a gas valve (Paragraphs 0008, 0024, and claim 2) in fluid communication with a burner (Paragraph 0008, 24 Figure 1) of the water heater (10, Figure 1), the gas valve comprising a first aperture, wherein the gas valve is configured to open or close the first aperture based on an actuation of an actuating component (Paragraph 0024); one or more processors (Paragraphs 0023-0025, 36, Figure 2); and memory (Paragraph 0023) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: present, on a display of the water heater and during an initial configuration of the water heater, one or more instructions relating to a gas valve adjustment test (Paragraph 0029 discloses display 54, Figure 4 showing at least status of the water heater, boost mode, and also temperature settings. All these are considered instructions relating to a gas valve adjustment test. It is further noted that a gas valve adjustment test is not defined and can be interpreted broadly).
Regarding claim 7, Leeland teaches wherein the gas valve further comprises a second aperture (gas valve has an inlet and outlet and in its normal use would have apertures for screws/wires and the like).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeland in view of U.S. Patent 8371252 to Paine (Paine).
Regarding claim 2, Leeland is silent on wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: present, on the display and during the gas valve adjustment test, data relating to operation of the water heater, the data including a fan speed of a blower of the water heater and a temperature of a tank of the water heater.
Paine teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: present, on the display and during the gas valve adjustment test, data relating to operation of the water heater, the data including a fan speed of a blower of the water heater (Figure 4c) and a temperature of a tank of the water heater (Figure 4a, these items are displayed with or without a gas valve adjustment test being run). 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 Leeland with the teachings of Paine to provide wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: present, on the display and during the gas valve adjustment test, data relating to operation of the water heater, the data including a fan speed of a blower of the water heater and a temperature of a tank of the water heater. Doing so would display information already present in the system and would allow for a user to observe additional data as desired.
Regarding claim 3, Leeland wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: determine that the temperature of the tank of the water heater surpasses a temperature set point during operation of the gas valve adjustment test (controlling to a setpoint disclosed throughout and in Paragraph 0031 and 94, Figure 6); and present, on the display, an indication that the gas valve adjustment test has ceased (96, Figure 6 exits boost mode which can be considered a valve adjustment test and Paragraph 0029 discloses displaying if a boost mode is engaged).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeland in view of U.S. PGPUB 20080154546 to Kato et al. (Kato).
Regarding claim 4, Leeland is silent on wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: determine an amount of gas that is provided to the burner through the gas valve and from a gas intake during the gas valve adjustment test.
Kato teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: determine an amount of gas that is provided to the burner through the gas valve and from a gas intake during the gas valve adjustment test (Paragraphs 0005 and 0029 determines the amount of gas used over a period of time which can be set toa gas valve test or that period of time could be interpreted as the gas valve test). 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 Leeland with the teachings of Kato to provide wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: determine an amount of gas that is provided to the burner through the gas valve and from a gas intake during the gas valve adjustment test. Doing so would allow a user to determine the amount of gas used over a period of time.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeland in view of Kato and U.S. PGPUB 2024018543 to Broker et al. (Broker).
Regarding claim 5, Leeland is silent on wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: adjust an offset element of the gas valve, wherein the offset element is configured to increase or decrease the amount of gas that is provided to the burner.
Broker teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: adjust an offset element of the gas valve, wherein the offset element is configured to increase or decrease the amount of gas that is provided to the burner (Paragraphs 0040-0044). 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 Leeland with the teachings of Broker to provide wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: adjust an offset element of the gas valve, wherein the offset element is configured to increase or decrease the amount of gas that is provided to the burner. Doing so would allow an accurate and desired amount of gas to flow through the system.
Regarding claim 6, Leeland is silent on wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: present, on the display, an indication of an adjustment to an offset element of the gas valve, wherein the offset element is configured to increase or decrease the amount of gas that is provided to the burner
Broker teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: present, on the display, an indication of an adjustment to an offset element of the gas valve, wherein the offset element is configured to increase or decrease the amount of gas that is provided to the burner (Paragraphs 0040-0044 and 0059 which discloses displaying the offset). 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 Leeland with the teachings of Brokerto provide wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: present, on the display, an indication of an adjustment to an offset element of the gas valve, wherein the offset element is configured to increase or decrease the amount of gas that is provided to the burner. Doing so would allow an accurate and desired amount of gas to flow through the system and the offset to be displayed as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPUB 20100116227 shows the general state of the art.
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
Prosecution Insights