DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 20 is/are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged. The prior-filed application is U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/484,038 (filed on 2/9/2023).
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/11/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a detection unit configured to detect…” in Claim 1,
“the controller is configured to: obtain…activate…detect…and activate…” in Claim 1,
“the controller is configured to: determine…and activate…” in Claim 6, and
“the controller is configured to charge…” in Claims 11 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “and/or”, and it should be “at least one of A and B”, where A and B are the elements on which the “and/or” is operating.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-7, 9-10, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deivasigamani et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,498,523) (hereinafter “Deivasigamani”).
Regarding claim 1 and corresponding claims 13 and 20, Deivasigamani teaches a water heating system (Fig. 1, 4, 5 - - water heater 2 is used as a water heating system)
comprising: a water heater connected with a utility energy source; (Col. 21 Line 63 – Col. 22 Line 11 - - utility natural gas service is used)
a battery connected with the water heater, (Col. 17 Lines 30-44 - - battery is connected to water heater)
wherein the battery is configured to provide energy to the water heater; (Col. 17 Lines 30-44 - - battery acts as a secondary onboard energy source)
a detection unit configured to detect water demand associated with the water heating system; (Col. 9 Lines 18-43 - - water demand is detected, as well as amount of water demanded measured)
and a controller communicatively coupled with the water heater, the battery, and the detection unit, (Fig. 1-5 - - controller 38 is connected to water heater 2 and detection units/sensors/switches; Col. 17 Lines 30-44 - - battery automatically provides energy as backup, i.e. controller controls battery to provide power in the event of power disruption)
wherein the controller is configured to: obtain, from the detection unit, the water demand; (Col. 9 Lines 18-43 - - water demand is detected, as well as amount of water demanded measured; Fig. 1-5 - - controller 38 obtains information from detection units/sensors/switches)
activate, based on the water demand, the water heater in a first operation mode; (Col. 8 Lines 4-14 - - water heating element(s) is turned on, i.e. activated, based on water demand, which is a first mode of operation; Col. 14 Lines 1-20 - - mode of operation for a first demand point is used using burner 34 of primary heating element)
detect, by the detection unit, a trigger event; (Col. 8 Lines4-14 - - leakage can be detected to trigger a response)
and activate, based on the trigger event, the water heater in a second operation mode. (Col. 8 Lines 4-14 - - activating associated alarms or alerts can be a second operation mode in response to the trigger event)
Regarding claim 3, Deivasigamani teaches wherein the water heater is a tankless water heater configured to heat water by using energy drawn from the utility energy source and/or the energy drawn from the battery. (Col. 7 Line 60 – Col. 8 Line 3 - - tankless water heater is used to heat water using energy; Col. 21 Line 63 – Col. 22 Line 11 - - utility natural gas service is used; Col. 17 Lines 30-44 - - battery acts as a secondary onboard energy source)
Regarding claim 5 and corresponding claims 14 and 15, Deivasigamani teaches wherein the water demand is associated with at least one of: a water flow rate from the water heating system or a desired temperature of output water from the water heating system. (Col. 9 Lines 18-29 - - water demand is associated with flow rate as well as maintaining a desired outlet temperature)
Regarding claim 6 and corresponding claim 16, Deivasigamani teaches wherein the controller is configured to: determine that the water demand is less than a predefined threshold; (Col. 15 Lines 37-44 - - sensor detection is less than detection threshold, i.e. predefined)
and activate, based on the water demand being less than the predefined threshold, the water heater in the first operation mode, (Col. 15 Lines 37-44 - - primary heating element including burner 34 is used in the first operation mode)
wherein the water heater is configured to heat water by using energy drawn from only the utility energy source in the first operation mode. (Col. 17 Lines 30-44 - - secondary energy source is used only in the event of power loss, i.e. water is heated using only utility energy source in first operation mode)
Regarding claim 7 and corresponding claim 17, Deivasigamani teaches wherein detecting the trigger event comprises determining that the water demand is greater than the predefined threshold. (Col. 12 Line 59 – Col. 13 Line 16, Col. 14 Lines 49-61 - - buffer tank is used when sudden increase in water demand occurs, i.e. greater than predefined threshold)
Regarding claim 9, Deivasigamani teaches wherein detecting the trigger event comprises determining a disruption in energy supply from the utility energy source. (Col. 17 Lines 30-44 - - battery automatically provides energy as backup, i.e. controller controls battery to provide power in the event of power disruption)
Regarding claim 10, Deivasigamani teaches wherein the water heater is configured to heat water by using energy drawn from the battery in the second operation mode. (Col. 17 Lines 30-44 - - battery automatically provides energy as backup, i.e. controller controls battery to provide power in the event of power disruption)
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4, 8, 11-12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deivasigamani in view of King et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0121260) (hereinafter “King”).
Regarding claim 2, Deivasigamani teaches a heating element, (Fig. 3 - - heating element is used)
But Deivasigamani does not explicitly teach wherein the utility energy source provides a first amount of current to the heating element,
wherein the first amount of current is less than a second amount of current required for operation of the heating element,
wherein the battery is charged using the utility energy source,
and wherein the battery is used to provide the second amount of current for operation of the heating element.
However, King teaches wherein the utility energy source provides a first amount of current to the heating element, (Fig. 2 - - grid, i.e. utility, provides first amount of current to consumption device; Para. 72 - - consumption device can be heating element of water heater)
wherein the first amount of current is less than a second amount of current required for operation of the heating element, (Fig. 2 - - grid can deliver less than the required amount, in which case storage device or generation device can supplement)
wherein the battery is charged using the utility energy source, (Fig. 2 - - storage device, i.e. battery, is connected to grid via controller to be charged)
and wherein the battery is used to provide the second amount of current for operation of the heating element. (Fig. 2 - - storage device, i.e. battery, can provide supplemental power to heating element of consumption device)
Deivasigamani and King are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain powering of water heaters using battery and utility/grid.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Deivasigamani, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by King.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage distribution of electrical power, as suggested by King (Para. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Deivasigamani teaches the limitations of the base claim(s).
But Deivasigamani does not explicitly teach wherein the water heater is connected with the utility energy source via a circuit breaker.
However, King teaches wherein the water heater is connected with the utility energy source via a circuit breaker. (Para. 67, 128 - - circuit breaker is used)
Deivasigamani and King are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain powering of water heaters using battery and utility/grid.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Deivasigamani, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by King.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage distribution of electrical power, as suggested by King (Para. 3).
Regarding claim 8 and corresponding claim 18, Deivasigamani teaches the limitations of the base claim(s).
But Deivasigamani does not explicitly teach wherein the water heater is configured to heat water by using energy drawn from the utility energy source and the battery in the second operation mode.
However, King teaches wherein the water heater is configured to heat water by using energy drawn from the utility energy source and the battery in the second operation mode. (Fig. 2 - - consumption device, i.e. water heater, is connected to both grid, i.e. utility, and storage device, i.e. battery, thus being in second operation mode when drawing power from both of these)
Deivasigamani and King are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain powering of water heaters using battery and utility/grid.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Deivasigamani, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by King.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage distribution of electrical power, as suggested by King (Para. 3).
Regarding claim 11 and corresponding claim 19, Deivasigamani teaches the limitations of the base claim(s).
But Deivasigamani does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to charge the battery by using energy from the utility energy source.
However, King teaches wherein the controller is configured to charge the battery by using energy from the utility energy source. (Fig. 2 - - storage device, i.e. battery, is connected to grid, i.e. utility energy source, via controller for charging)
Deivasigamani and King are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain powering of water heaters using battery and utility/grid.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Deivasigamani, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by King.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage distribution of electrical power, as suggested by King (Para. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Deivasigamani teaches the limitations of the base claim(s).
But Deivasigamani does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to charge the battery by using energy from a renewable energy source.
However, King teaches wherein the controller is configured to charge the battery by using energy from a renewable energy source. (Fig. 2 - - storage device, i.e. battery, is connected to generation device, i.e. renewable energy source, via controller for charging)
Deivasigamani and King are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain powering of water heaters using battery and utility/grid.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Deivasigamani, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by King.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage distribution of electrical power, as suggested by King (Para. 3).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0197205 by Ene et al., which discloses tank-tankless water heater (Title/Abstract).
U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0042635 by Nelson et al., which discloses heat pump water heater in conjunction with gas water heater (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
