DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 212 reads “electrode chamber 190”, but should read “electrode chamber 130” to correct the reference character;
Para. 227 reads “first axial edge 215”, but should read “first axial edge 210” to correct the reference character;
Para. 228 reads “second axial edge 295”, but should read “second axial edge 290” to correct the reference character;
Paras. 245-247 read “housing 110”, but should read “housing 100” to correct the reference character.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 3-4 recite “said housing comprising”, but should recite “said housing comprising:” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 1 line 6 recites “arrangement:”, but should recite “arrangement[[:]];” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 2 line 5 recites “and, wherein”, but should recite “[[and,]] wherein” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 4 lines 2-5 recite “wherein the at least one acid entry port is transversely spaced from the shielding wall by a first vertical spacing; wherein the at least one acid entry port is transversely spaced from the shielding wall by a first vertical spacing”, but should recite “
Claim 4 line 5 recites “and, wherein”, but should recite “and[[,]] wherein” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 4 lines 8-11 recite “wherein the first axial edge extends away from the at least one acid entry port towards the first water flow opening by a first axial distance; wherein the first axial edge extends away from the at least one acid entry port towards the first water flow opening by a first axial distance”, but should recite “
Claim 4 line 11 recites “and, wherein”, but should recite “and[[,]] wherein” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 4 lines 13-16 recite “wherein the second axial edge extends away from the at least one acid entry port and towards the second water flow opening by a second axial distance; wherein the second axial edge extends away from the at least one acid entry port and towards the second water flow opening by a second axial distance”, but should recite “
Claim 4 line 16 recites “and, wherein”, but should recite “and[[,]] wherein” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 6 line 6 recites “and,”, but should recite “and[[,]]” to correct the typo;
Claim 7 line 11 recites “second first installation”, but should recite “said second [[first]] installation” to correct the typo;
Claim 11 lines 3-4 recite “said housing comprising”, but should recite “said housing comprising:” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 11 line 5 recites “separator:”, but should recite “separator[[:]];” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 23 line 4 recites “comprising”, but should recite “comprising:” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 23 line 5 recites “chamber, a sampling chamber:”, but should recite “chamber, and a sampling chamber[[:]];” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 is: “a sampling chamber shielding arrangement … configured for preventing transverse fluid communication therethrough” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is 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 limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 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 1, 4, 7-10, and 13-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a sampling chamber shielding arrangement … the sampling chamber shielding arrangement being configured for preventing transverse fluid communication therethrough” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the specification lists examples of the components that may be included in the “sampling chamber shielding arrangement” in e.g., para. 9, but does not clearly define which of these components are necessary to serve the function of “preventing transverse fluid communication therethrough” as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
It is noted that this issue is cured in claim 2, because claim 2 recites structure sufficient for the “sampling chamber shielding arrangement” to perform the function of “preventing transverse fluid communication therethrough”.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the limitation “the shielding wall” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Specifically, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, does not recite “a shielding wall”. It is therefore unclear whether:
a) the recitation “a shielding arrangement …” in claim 1 is intended to require a shielding wall when interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f),
b) claim 4 was intended to depend from claim 2, or
c) claim 4 is intended to recite “a shielding wall” that is distinct from the “a shielding arrangement …” recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, the term “about” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification provides no definition for the term “about”, and it is therefore unclear what range is intended to be claimed by the terms “about 30%” in lines 12 and 17 of the claim.
Furthermore, claim 4 depends from claim 1, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 1.
Regarding claims 7-10, claims 7-10 depend from claim 1, and therefore inherit the indefinite language of claim 1. Claims 7-10 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the term “about” in claims 13 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification provides no definition for the term “about”, and it is therefore unclear what range is intended to be claimed by the terms “between about 7 to about 15” in claims 13 and 14.
Claims 13 and 14 are therefore indefinite.
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.
Claims 11-12, 17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mastio (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0326680 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mastio teaches a housing (“housing 16” para. 46 and Fig. 11) for use in a chlorinator, the chlorinator being operable with an electrode assembly accommodated in the housing to produce one or more sanitizing agents from solute dissolved in water in operation of the chlorinator (e.g., abstract), said housing comprising:
a first water flow opening (“inlet 12” para. 44 and Fig. 11),
a second water flow opening (“outlet 14” Id.),
an electrolysis chamber (interior of “electrode assembly receptacle 18” para. 46 and Figs. 10-11),
a sampling chamber (“channel 32” para. 49 and Fig. 10), and
a flow stream separator (“wall 33 of the electrode assembly receptacle 18” para. 60 and Fig. 10);
the first water flow opening being axially spaced from the second water flow opening (“The inlet 12 and outlet 14 share an axis 34.” Para. 50 and Fig. 9) and defining therebetween a housing internal volume (see e.g., Fig. 9), the first water flow opening and the second water flow opening configured for being coupled to a source of water in operation of the chlorinator (“installed in a pipe 11 that, in use, communicates water from the pool to a pool water pump” para. 44 and Figs. 9-11);
said electrolysis chamber being configured for accommodating therein at least a portion of the electrode assembly (“electrode assembly receptacle 18 is arranged for an electrode assembly 20 to be received therein” para. 46 and Fig. 11);
the electrolysis chamber axially extending between a first electrolysis chamber axial end and a second electrolysis chamber axial end, the first electrolysis chamber axial end being in fluid communication with the first water flow opening, the second electrolysis chamber axial end being in fluid communication with the second water flow opening (see Figs. 9 and 11);
the sampling chamber configured for selectively enabling sampling of water entering the housing in operation of the chlorinator (“Sensors such as 46 and 50 sense properties of water in the channel 32” para. 60 and Fig. 11, see also para. 54);
the flow stream separator comprising a first partition edge, a second partition edge and a partition wall, the partition wall axially extending between the first partition edge and the second partition edge (as best shown in Fig. 11, “wall 33” extends axially between the two partition edges);
the partition wall separating the housing internal volume into a main channel and an auxiliary channel (see Fig. 10 and para. 60), the main channel extending axially between said first partition edge and said second partition edge, and wholly accommodating therein the electrolysis chamber on a first side of the partition wall (see Fig. 9),
the auxiliary channel defined between and extending axially between a first auxiliary channel opening axially defined at the first partition edge and a second auxiliary channel opening axially defined at the second partition edge (see Fig. 10 and para. 60), the sampling chamber being wholly accommodated axially in the auxiliary channel between the first auxiliary channel opening and the second auxiliary channel opening, on a second side of the partition wall (see Figs. 9 and 10);
the flow separator being configured in operation of the chlorinator for separating at the first partition edge water flowing into the housing via the first water flow opening into a main water stream flowing through the main channel and an auxiliary water stream flowing through the auxiliary channel between the first partition edge and the second partition edge (“the channel 32 is defined by a wall 33 of the electrode assembly receptacle 18 and a wall 35 of the housing 16” para. 60 and Figs. 10-11).
Regarding claim 12, Mastio further teaches said first partition edge defines a first auxiliary channel opening having a first auxiliary channel transverse cross- sectional area, and a first main channel opening having a first main channel transverse cross-sectional area (see Fig. 10), and wherein said second partition edge defines a second auxiliary channel opening having a second auxiliary channel transverse cross-sectional area, and a second main channel opening having a second main channel transverse cross-sectional area (see Figs. 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 17, Mastio anticipates the limitations of claim 11, as described above.
The limitation “the housing is configured for being coupled to an inlet conduit and to an outlet conduit of a water recirculation circuit, alternately in each one of a first installation configuration and a second installation configuration, wherein: …”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Mastio teaches the housing is essentially symmetrical with respect to a plane transverse to the intended flow direction (see e.g., Fig. 8). It is therefore considered that the system of Mastio is capable of being coupled to an inlet conduit and an outlet conduit of a water recirculation circuit, alternately in each one of a first installation configuration and a second installation configuration, wherein in the first configuration the water flows from the “inlet 12” to the “outlet 14”, and in the second configuration the water flows from the “outlet 14” to the “inlet 12” as claimed. I.e., it is considered that the system of Mastio is capable of having either the “inlet 12” or the “outlet 14” serve as the source of feed.
Mastio therefore anticipates the limitation “the housing is configured for being coupled to an inlet conduit and to an outlet conduit of a water recirculation circuit, alternately in each one of a first installation configuration and a second installation configuration, wherein: …” as currently drafted.
Regarding claim 19, Mastio anticipates the limitations of claim 11, as described above.
Mastio further teaches an electrode assembly accommodated in the electrolysis chamber (“electrode assembly 20” para. 46 and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 21, Mastio further teaches a body of water (“the pool” para. 44);
a pumping system (“a pool water pump” para. 44);
a controller (“a processor” para. 52);
an inlet conduit configured for channeling water from the body of water to the chlorinator (“pipe 11” para. 44 and Fig. 9); and
an outlet conduit configured for channeling water from the chlorinator to the body of water (“pipe 11” para. 44 and Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 22, Mastio further teaches the chlorinator is installed in a first installation configuration wherein the first water flow opening is connected to said inlet conduit such as to receive water flow therefrom, and wherein the second water flow opening is connected to said outlet conduit such as to deliver water flow thereto, during operation of the chlorinator (“inlet 12” and “outlet 14” para. 44 and Fig. 9).
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 1-5, 7-8, 10, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastio (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0326680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “a/the sampling chamber shielding arrangement” have been interpreted as “a/the sampling chamber shield”.
Mastio teaches a housing (“housing 16” para. 46 and Fig. 11) for use in a chlorinator, the chlorinator being operable with an electrode assembly accommodated in the housing to produce one or more sanitizing agents from solute dissolved in water in operation of the chlorinator (e.g., abstract), said housing comprising:
a first water flow opening (“inlet 12” para. 44 and Fig. 11),
a second water flow opening (“outlet 14” Id.),
an electrolysis chamber (interior of “electrode assembly receptacle 18” para. 46 and Figs. 10-11), a sampling chamber (“channel 32” para. 49 and Fig. 10),
an acid entry port (“port 42” para. 53 and Fig. 11), and
a sampling chamber shield (“electrode assembly receptacle 18” para. 46 and Figs. 10-11);
the first water flow opening being axially spaced from the second water flow opening (“The inlet 12 and outlet 14 share an axis 34.” Para. 50 and Fig. 9) and defining therebetween a housing internal volume (see e.g., Fig. 9), the first water flow opening and the second water flow opening configured for being coupled to a source of water in operation of the chlorinator (“installed in a pipe 11 that, in use, communicates water from the pool to a pool water pump” para. 44 and Figs. 9-11);
said electrolysis chamber being configured for accommodating therein at least a portion of the electrode assembly (“electrode assembly receptacle 18 is arranged for an electrode assembly 20 to be received therein” para. 46 and Fig. 11);
the acid entry port being configured for selectively enabling introduction of an acid therethrough (“The processor may … cause a feeder 52 in port 42 to inject at least one of (but not limited to) a buffer, an acid, and an alkaline solution to appropriately adjust the pH” Id.),
the sampling chamber shield being configured for preventing transverse fluid communication therethrough (“wall 33” para. 60 and Figs. 10-11).
Mastio does not teach the acid entry port introduces the acid into the electrolysis chamber, wherein the sampling chamber shield is transversely interposed between the acid entry port and the sampling chamber.
Mastio instead teaches the acid entry port introduces the acid into the sampling chamber.
However, rearranging the location of parts, absent evidence of unexpected results, has been held to be a prima facie obvious matter of design choice (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Furthermore, choosing from a finite number of known options establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(E)). In the instant case, the acid entry port of Mastio could be suitably located:
a) upstream from the sampling chamber shield;
b) in the electrolysis chamber;
c) in the sampling chamber; or
d) downstream from the sampling chamber shield.
Currently, Applicant’s specification indicates that locating the acid entry port in the electrolysis chamber prevents the acid from entering the sampling chamber (e.g., para. 7). However, there is no evidence of record supporting that this (or another) effect of locating the acid entry port in the electrolysis chamber as claimed constitutes an unexpected result. It is therefore considered that the selection of the location of the acid entry port is a design choice that would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art since before the effective filing date of the instant application. This determination may be reconsidered in light of evidence provided by applicant (see MPEP § 716.01 and 716.02).
Regarding claim 2, Mastio further teaches the sampling chamber shield comprises a first axial edge, a second axial edge and a shielding wall (“wall 33” Figs. 10-11 and para. 60), the shielding wall axially extending between the first axial edge and the second axial edge (as best shown in Fig. 11, “wall 33” extends axially between two partition edges),
wherein the at least one acid entry port is axially intermediate with respect to each one of the first axial edge and the second axial edge (Fig. 11 shows “port 42” is located between the first and second axial edges of “wall 33”),
wherein the shielding wall comprises a first side and an opposite facing second side (see e.g., Fig. 11),
wherein the shielding wall separates the housing internal volume into a main channel (interior of “electrode assembly receptacle 18” para. 46 and Figs. 10-11) and an auxiliary channel (“channel 32” para. 49 and Fig. 10), the main channel extending axially between said first axial edge and said second axial edge, and wholly accommodating therein the electrolysis chamber on said first side of the shielding wall (see e.g., Fig. 11), the auxiliary channel extending axially between the first axial edge and the second axial edge and wholly accommodating therein the sampling chamber on said second side of the shielding wall (see e.g., Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Mastio does not teach the acid port is wholly located in said main channel.
However, for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, enumerated for claim 1, above, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Mastio such that the acid port is wholly located in said main channel.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 has been interpreted as “a shielding wall”.
Mastio renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Mastio further teaches the acid entry port is transversely spaced from a shielding wall (“wall 33” Figs. 10-11 and para. 60) by a first vertical spacing (see Figs. 10-11), and wherein the shielding wall has a shielding wall axial length (see Figs. 10-11);
wherein the first axial edge extends away from the at least one acid entry port towards the first water flow opening by a first axial distance (see e.g., Fig. 11); and
wherein the second axial edge extends away from the at least one acid entry port and towards the second water flow opening by a second axial distance (see e.g., Fig. 11).
Mastio does not teach the ratio of the first vertical spacing to the shield wall axial length is between 0.05 to 0.15, the first axial distance is about 30% of an axial dimension of the housing, or the second axial distance is about 30% of an axial dimension of the housing.
However, a change in relative dimensions has been held to be prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Currently, there is no evidence of record to support the claimed ratios of the first vertical spacing to the shield wall axial length, the first axial distance to an axial dimension of the housing, or the second axial distance to the axial dimension of the housing, alone or in combination, produce an unexpected result. It is therefore considered that these ratio(s) is/are a design choice(s) that would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art since before the effective filing date of the instant application. Therefore, Mastio is considered to render the limitations “wherein a ratio of the first vertical spacing to the shielding wall axial length is between 0.05 to 0.15”, “wherein said first axial distance is about 30% of an axial dimension of the housing” and “wherein said second axial distance is about 30% of an axial dimension of the housing” obvious. This/these determination(s) may be reconsidered in light of evidence provided by applicant (see MPEP § 716.01 and 716.02).
Regarding claim 5, Mastio renders the limitations of claim 2 obvious, as described above.
Mastio further teaches the shielding arrangement is further configured as a flow separator, the flow separator being configured in operation of the chlorinator for separating at the first axial edge water flowing into the housing via the first water flow opening into a main water stream flowing through the main channel and an auxiliary water stream flowing through the auxiliary channel (“the channel 32 is defined by a wall 33 of the electrode assembly receptacle 18 and a wall 35 of the housing 16” para. 60 and Figs. 10-11).
Regarding claim 7, Mastio renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
The limitation “the housing is configured for being coupled to an inlet conduit and to an outlet conduit of a water recirculation circuit, alternately in each one of a first installation configuration and a second installation configuration, wherein: …”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Mastio teaches the housing is essentially symmetrical with respect to a plane transverse to the intended flow direction (see e.g., Fig. 8). It is therefore considered that the system of Mastio is capable of being coupled to an inlet conduit and an outlet conduit of a water recirculation circuit, alternately in each one of a first installation configuration and a second installation configuration, wherein in the first configuration the water flows from the “inlet 12” to the “outlet 14”, and in the second configuration the water flows from the “outlet 14” to the “inlet 12” as claimed. I.e., it is considered that the system of Mastio is capable of having either the “inlet 12” or the “outlet 14” serve as the source of feed.
Mastio therefore reads on the limitation “the housing is configured for being coupled to an inlet conduit and to an outlet conduit of a water recirculation circuit, alternately in each one of a first installation configuration and a second installation configuration, wherein: …” as currently drafted.
Regarding claim 8, Mastio renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Mastio further teaches an electrode assembly accommodated in the electrolysis chamber (“electrode assembly 20” para. 46 and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Mastio further teaches a body of water (“the pool” para. 44);
a pumping system (“a pool water pump” para. 44);
a controller (“a processor” para. 52);
an inlet conduit configured for channeling water from the body of water to the chlorinator (“pipe 11” para. 44 and Fig. 9); and
an outlet conduit configured for channeling water from the chlorinator to the body of water (“pipe 11” para. 44 and Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Mastio anticipates the limitations of claim 12, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) above, incorporated herein by reference.
Mastio does not teach a ratio of said first main channel transverse cross-sectional area to said first auxiliary channel transverse cross-sectional area is at least one of: in the range between about 7 to about 15; any one of: 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7. Mastio is instead silent as to the relative cross-sectional areas of the main and auxiliary channels.
However, a change in relative dimensions has been held to be prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Currently, there is no evidence of record to support the claimed ratio(s) of the first cross-sectional areas produce an unexpected result. It is therefore considered that the ratio between the first cross-sectional areas is a design choice that would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art since before the effective filing date of the instant application. Therefore, Mastio is considered to render the limitation “wherein a ratio of said first main channel transverse cross-sectional area to said first auxiliary channel transverse cross-sectional area is at least one of: in the range between about 7 to about 15; any one of: 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7.” obvious. This determination may be reconsidered in light of evidence provided by applicant (see MPEP § 716.01 and 716.02).
Regarding claim 14, Mastio anticipates the limitations of claim 12, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) above, incorporated herein by reference.
Mastio does not teach a ratio of said second main channel transverse cross-sectional area to said second auxiliary channel transverse cross-sectional area is at least one of: in the range between about 7 to about 15; any one of: 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7. Mastio is instead silent as to the relative cross-sectional areas of the main and auxiliary channels.
However, a change in relative dimensions has been held to be prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Currently, there is no evidence of record to support the claimed ratio(s) of the second cross-sectional areas produce an unexpected result. It is therefore considered that the ratio between the second cross-sectional areas is a design choice that would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art since before the effective filing date of the instant application. Therefore, Mastio is considered to render the limitation “wherein a ratio of said second main channel transverse cross-sectional area to said second auxiliary channel transverse cross-sectional area is at least one of: in the range between about 7 to about 15; any one of: 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7.” obvious. This determination may be reconsidered in light of evidence provided by applicant (see MPEP § 716.01 and 716.02).
Regarding claim 18, Mastio anticipates the limitations of claim 11, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) above, incorporated herein by reference.
Mastio further teaches an acid entry port (“port 42” para. 53 and Fig. 11), wherein:
the acid entry port is configured for selectively enabling introduction of an acid therethrough (“The processor may … cause a feeder 52 in port 42 to inject at least one of (but not limited to) a buffer, an acid, and an alkaline solution to appropriately adjust the pH” Id.); and
the flow stream separator is configured for preventing transverse fluid communication therethrough (see Fig. 11).
Mastio does not teach the acid entry port introduces the acid into the electrolysis chamber wherein the flow stream separator is transversely interposed between the acid entry port and the sampling chamber.
Mastio instead teaches the acid entry port introduces the acid into the sampling chamber.
However, rearranging the location of parts, absent evidence of unexpected results, has been held to be a prima facie obvious matter of design choice (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Furthermore, choosing from a finite number of known options establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(E)). In the instant case, the acid entry port of Mastio could be suitably located:
a) upstream from the flow stream separator;
b) in the electrolysis chamber;
c) in the sampling chamber; or
d) downstream from the flow stream separator.
Currently, Applicant’s specification indicates that locating the acid entry port in the electrolysis chamber prevents the acid from entering the sampling chamber (e.g., para. 7). However, there is no evidence of record supporting that this (or another) effect of locating the acid entry port in the electrolysis chamber as claimed constitutes an unexpected result. It is therefore considered that the selection of the location of the acid entry port is a design choice that would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art since before the effective filing date of the instant application. This determination may be reconsidered in light of evidence provided by applicant (see MPEP § 716.01 and 716.02).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastio, as applied to claims 1 or 8, and further in view of Chen (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0105372 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mastio renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Mastio further teaches said sampling chamber comprises at least one sampling port (“port 36” para. 52 and Figs. 9-11), said sampling port configured for enabling a respective sensor to be introduced into the sampling chamber from an outside of the housing (“At port 36 is a sensor 46” Id.).
Mastio does not teach the sampling chamber comprises a flow diverter.
However, Chen teaches a housing for use in a chlorinator (“chlorinator 10” para. 44 and e.g., Fig. 2), the housing comprising an electrolysis chamber and a sampling chamber separated by a flow stream separator (see annotated Fig. 22, below, see also Fig. 19), wherein said sampling chamber comprises a flow diverter (“flow guides 70” para. 48 and Fig. 20) configured for directing an auxiliary water stream from a first axial edge of the flow stream separator to a bottom section of the sampling chamber, and for directing the auxiliary water stream from said bottom section to a second axial edge of the flow stream separator (see e.g., Figs. 11, 20), the flow diverter including a barrier wall in the sampling chamber projecting transversely in the auxiliary channel with respect to a longitudinal axis of the housing (e.g., Fig. 20 shows the “flow guides 70” comprise walls projecting transversely into the auxiliary channel), which provides the predictable benefit of guiding the flow through the auxiliary channel to a sensor (“The flow guides 70 also assist in guiding the flow to better contact the sensors 88” para. 48 and Figs. 20, 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
932
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Chen Fig. 22
As Mastio and Chen each teach housings for chlorinators, Mastio and Chen are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Mastio by adding a flow diverter configured for directing an auxiliary water stream from the first axial edge of the flow stream separator to a bottom section of the sampling chamber, and for directing the auxiliary water stream from said bottom section to the second axial edge of the flow stream separator, the flow diverter including a barrier wall in the sampling chamber projecting transversely in the auxiliary channel with respect to a longitudinal axis of the housing, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the flow to the sensors, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 9, Mastio renders the limitations of claim 8 obvious, as described above.
Mastio does not teach at least one of: a control unit for controlling operation of the electrode assembly; and a fluid flow sensor arrangement configured for detecting the presence of water flowing inside the housing.
However, Chen teaches a housing for use in a chlorinator (“chlorinator 10” para. 44 and e.g., Fig. 2), the housing comprising an electrolysis chamber and a sampling chamber separated by a flow stream separator (see annotated Fig. 22, above, see also Fig. 19), wherein a fluid flow sensor arrangement is configured for detecting the presence of water flowing inside the housing (“bi-directional paddle 92 functions such that the reed switch 90 detects the presence of the magnet 96 when the bi-directional paddle 92 is upright, thereby indicating that there is no flow” para. 52), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing the system to display an error when no flow is detected (“this signal is recognized by the system and transmitted to the controller 20.” para. 52, see also para. 61).
As Mastio and Chen each teach housings for chlorinators, Mastio and Chen are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Mastio, by adding a fluid flow sensor arrangement configured for detecting the presence of water flowing inside the housing, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the system to display when flow is or is not detected, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 15-16, 20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mastio (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0326680 A1) in view of Chen (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0105372 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Mastio anticipates the limitations of claim 11, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) above, incorporated herein by reference.
Mastio does not teach the sampling chamber comprises a flow diverter.
However, Chen teaches a housing for use in a chlorinator (“chlorinator 10” para. 44 and e.g., Fig. 2), the housing comprising an electrolysis chamber and a sampling chamber separated by a flow stream separator (see annotated Fig. 22 above, see also Fig. 19), wherein said sampling chamber comprises a flow diverter (“flow guides 70” para. 48 and Fig. 20) configured for directing an auxiliary water stream from a first axial edge of the flow stream separator to a bottom section of the sampling chamber, and for directing the auxiliary water stream from said bottom section to a second axial edge of the flow stream separator (see e.g., Figs. 11, 20), the flow diverter including a barrier wall in the sampling chamber projecting transversely in the auxiliary channel with respect to a longitudinal axis of the housing (e.g., Fig. 20 shows the “flow guides 70” comprise walls projecting transversely into the auxiliary channel), which provides the predictable benefit of guiding the flow through the auxiliary channel to a sensor (“The flow guides 70 also assist in guiding the flow to better contact the sensors 88” para. 48 and Figs. 20, 22).
As Mastio and Chen each teach housings for chlorinators, Mastio and Chen are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Mastio, by adding a flow diverter configured for directing an auxiliary water stream from a first axial edge of the flow stream separator to a bottom section of the sampling chamber, and for directing the auxiliary water stream from said bottom section to a second axial edge of the flow stream separator, the flow diverter including a barrier wall in the sampling chamber projecting transversely in the auxiliary channel with respect to a longitudinal axis of the housing, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the flow to the sensors, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 16, Mastio further teaches the sampling chamber comprises a plurality of ports, each said port configured for enabling a sensor to be introduced into the sampling chamber from outside the housing (“a plurality of ports 36, 38, 40 and 44. At port 36 is a sensor 46” para. 52 and “At port 40 a pH sensor 50 is inserted into the channel 32” para. 53, and see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 20, Mastio anticipates the limitations of claim 19, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) above, incorporated herein by reference.
Mastio does not teach at least one of: a control unit for controlling operation of the electrode assembly; and a fluid flow sensor arrangement configured for detecting the presence of water flowing inside the housing.
However, Chen teaches a housing for use in a chlorinator (“chlorinator 10” para. 44 and e.g., Fig. 2), the housing comprising an electrolysis chamber and a sampling chamber separated by a flow stream separator (see annotated Fig. 22, above, see also Fig. 19), wherein a fluid flow sensor arrangement is configured for detecting the presence of water flowing inside the housing (“bi-directional paddle 92 functions such that the reed switch 90 detects the presence of the magnet 96 when the bi-directional paddle 92 is upright, thereby indicating that there is no flow” para. 52), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing the system to display an error when no flow is detected (“this signal is recognized by the system and transmitted to the controller 20.” para. 52, see also para. 61).
As Mastio and Chen each teach housings for chlorinators, Mastio and Chen are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Mastio, by adding a fluid flow sensor arrangement configured for detecting the presence of water flowing inside the housing, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the system to display when flow is or is not detected, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 23, Mastio teaches a housing (“housing 16” para. 46 and Fig. 11) for use in a chlorinator, the chlorinator being operable with an electrode assembly accommodated in the housing to produce one or more sanitizing agents from solute dissolved in water in operation of the chlorinator (e.g., abstract), said housing comprising:
a first water flow opening (“inlet 12” para. 44 and Fig. 11),
a second water flow opening (“outlet 14” Id.),
an electrolysis chamber (interior of “electrode assembly receptacle 18” para. 46 and Figs. 10-11), and a sampling chamber (“channel 32” para. 49 and Fig. 10);
the first water flow opening being axially spaced from the second water flow opening (“The inlet 12 and outlet 14 share an axis 34.” Para. 50 and Fig. 9) and defining therebetween a housing internal volume (see e.g., Fig. 9), the first water flow opening and the second water flow opening configured for being coupled to a source of water in operation of the chlorinator (“installed in a pipe 11 that, in use, communicates water from the pool to a pool water pump” para. 44 and Figs. 9-11);
said electrolysis chamber being configured for accommodating therein at least a portion of the electrode assembly (“electrode assembly receptacle 18 is arranged for an electrode assembly 20 to be received therein” para. 46 and Fig. 11);
the housing being configured in operation of the chlorinator for separating water flowing into the housing via the first water flow opening into a main water stream flowing through a main channel (interior of “electrode assembly receptacle 18” para. 46 and Figs. 10-11) and an auxiliary water stream flowing through an auxiliary channel (“channel 32” para. 49 and Fig. 10).
Mastio does not teach the sampling chamber comprises a flow diverter, the flow diverter including a barrier wall in the sampling chamber and projecting transversely in the auxiliary channel with respect to a longitudinal axis of the housing, the flow diverter configured for directing the auxiliary water stream from a first end of the auxiliary channel to a bottom section of the sampling chamber, and for directing the auxiliary water stream from said bottom section to a second end of the auxiliary channel.
However, Chen teaches a housing for use in a chlorinator (“chlorinator 10” para. 44 and e.g., Fig. 2), the housing comprising an electrolysis chamber and a sampling chamber, wherein said sampling chamber comprises a flow diverter (“flow guides 70” para. 48 and Fig. 20), the flow diverter including a barrier wall in the sampling chamber projecting transversely in the auxiliary channel with respect to a longitudinal axis of the housing (e.g., Fig. 20 shows the “flow guides 70” comprise walls projecting transversely into the auxiliary channel), the flow diverter configured for directing an auxiliary water stream from a first end of the auxiliary channel to a bottom section of the sampling chamber, and for directing the auxiliary water stream from said bottom section to a second end of the auxiliary channel (see e.g., Figs. 11, 20), which provides the predictable benefit of guiding the flow through the auxiliary channel to a sensor (“The flow guides 70 also assist in guiding the flow to better contact the sensors 88” para. 48 and Figs. 20, 22).
As Mastio and Chen each teach housings for chlorinators, Mastio and Chen are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Mastio, by adding a flow diverter including a barrier wall in the sampling chamber and projecting transversely in the auxiliary channel with respect to a longitudinal axis of the housing, the flow diverter configured for directing the auxiliary water stream from a first end of the auxiliary channel to a bottom section of the sampling chamber, and for directing the auxiliary water stream from said bottom section to a second end of the auxiliary channel, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the flow to the sensors, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 24, Mastio further teaches an electrode assembly accommodated in the electrolysis chamber (“electrode assembly 20” para. 46 and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 25, Mastio further teaches a body of water (“the pool” para. 44);
a pumping system (“a pool water pump” para. 44);
a controller (“a processor” para. 52);
an inlet conduit configured for channeling water from the body of water to the chlorinator (“pipe 11” para. 44 and Fig. 9); and
an outlet conduit configured for channeling water from the chlorinator to the body of water (“pipe 11” para. 44 and Fig. 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights