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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1–3, 6, 7, 9–11, and 16–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott (US Pub. # 20180156769) in view of Huang (CN 219201572 U).
Regarding claims 1, and 16–20, Elliott teaches, “A water sensor buoy (claim 16: “method of operating”) for use in a water environment, the water sensor buoy comprising: a buoy hull sized and configured to float in the water environment (para. [0019; ref. # 100); a data processing and control unit supported by the buoy hull, the data processing and control unit sized and configured to generate a data signal upon receipt of sensor data from a water sensor (para. [0023]); a data transmission unit supported by the buoy hull and in electronic communication with the data processing and control unit, the data transmission unit being sized and configured to wirelessly transmit a data signal generated by the data processing and control unit (para. [0023]); a power source supported by the buoy hull and being in electrical communication with the data processing and control unit and the data transmission unit (para. [0022]; ref. # 120); a water sensor supported by the buoy hull, the water sensor including a sensing element and an exterior sensor surface facing away from the sensing element, the sensing element being in electronic communication with the data processing and control unit and the power source, the sensing element being sized and configured to sense an attribute of the water environment and generate sensor data for receipt by the data processing and control unit, the exterior sensor surface being exposed to the water environment upon the water sensor buoy being placed in the water environment (para. [0021–0023, 0029–0031, 0037]; ref. # 315, 545, 610); a wiper wheel rotatably supported by the buoy hull (para. [0041–0042]; ref. # 615a, 615b); a wiper attached to the wiper wheel, the wiper being sized and configured to slidably engage the exterior sensor surface upon rotation of the wiper wheel for removal of particulates disposed upon the exterior sensor surface (para. [0037–0042]; ref. # 320, 520, 615).” Elliott does not appear to teach, “the wiper wheel including a water jet outlet; a water pump being in electrical communication with the power source; and wherein a water jet outlet being in fluid communication with the water pump, the water jet outlet being sized and configured to direct a water stream at the exterior sensor surface upon rotation of the wiper wheel for removal of particulates disposed upon the exterior sensor surface.” However, Huang teaches the deficiencies of Elliott (see English translation page 4, line 15–page 5, line 19; specifically see: “…namely the micro water pump 31 is connected with the water pipe, using the micro water pump 31 the clean water into the drive chamber 24 through the water inlet pipe 25, using water flow drives the impeller 28 to rotate so as to drive the cleaning sleeve 26 to rotate, using the cleaning sleeve 26 inner side of the scraper 29 attached to the sensor probe 16 outside of the sludge, algae and so on, at the same time, the water in the driving chamber 24 flows into the cleaning sleeve 26 through the impeller 28 and the cleaning sleeve 26 on the jet hole 30, the cleaning sleeve 26 is scraped by the water flow of the sludge and algae, the sensor probe 16 has good cleaning effect…”; in summary, Fig. 1-7, specifically Fig. 6, ref. #29 is a blade/wiper, attached to wheel 26, cleaning sensor 16; pump 31 connected with water pipe drives impeller 28 to rotate cleaning sleeve/wheel 26, and water flows through jet hole 30, improving cleaning effect of 29 against 16).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elliott’s invention to include the wiper wheel including a water jet outlet; a water pump being in electrical communication with the power source; and wherein a water jet outlet being in fluid communication with the water pump, the water jet outlet being sized and configured to direct a water stream at the exterior sensor surface upon rotation of the wiper wheel for removal of particulates disposed upon the exterior sensor surface.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Elliott’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring enhanced cleaning and removal of unwanted foreign products on the surface of the detection sensor and sensor housing.
Regarding claim 2, Elliott teaches, “a sensor housing engaged with the buoy hull (305, 510; see also Fig. 6 hull, not numbered), the water sensor (315, 545, 610) is attached to the sensor housing (Fig. 3, ref. # 310; Fig. 5, ref. # 555; Fig. 6, unnumbered area where 610 is held), the wiper wheel (320, 550, 615; para. [0042]) is rotatably attached to the sensor housing.” Elliott does not appear to teach, “the water pump is attached to the sensor housing.” However, Huang teaches the deficiencies of Elliott (Fig. 5, ref. # 31 with 15 through 25; English translation page 4–5 and description of ref. # 31 and 25). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elliott’s invention to include the water pump is attached to the sensor housing.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Elliott’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring enhanced cleaning and removal of unwanted foreign products on the surface of the detection sensor and sensor housing, and further providing protection from unnecessary contact/submersion with water.
Regarding claim 3, Elliott teaches, “a wheel motor (see para. [0022, 0039–0041]), the wheel motor is electrically connected to the power source and engaged with the wiper wheel (ref. # 535 w/ 550 or para. [0041], ref. # 615a, 615b), the wheel motor is sized and configured to rotate the wiper wheel to move the wiper relative to the exterior sensor surface (ref. # 320, 550, 615; para. [0042] wiping ref. # 315, 545, 610).”
Regarding claim 6, Elliott teaches, “wherein the wiper includes a brush (see para. [0042]).”
Regarding claim 7, Elliott teaches, “wherein the wiper includes a wiper arm and the brush extends from the wiper arm (320, 520, 615; see para. [0042], which is interpreted as wiper arms and bristles extending therefrom).”
Regarding claim 9, Elliott teaches, “wherein the wiper is press-fit attached to the wiper wheel (320, 520, 615 are “press fit” attached, see para. [0042], bristles on 615).”
Regarding claim 10, Elliott teaches, “wherein the water sensor is a pH sensor (see para. [0029]).”
Regarding claim 11, Elliott teaches, “wherein the water sensor is an optical fluorescence sensor (see para. [0029]).”
Claim(s) 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott and Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (WO 2021150991).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 8, the combination of Elliott and Huang do not appear to teach, “wherein the wiper wheel includes a radially extending slot, the wiper is disposed in the slot; wherein the wiper is press-fit attached to the wiper wheel in the slot.” However, Lee teaches the deficiencies of Elliott and Huang (see Fig. 24–32, ref. # 2800, 2800-a, 2800-b; para. [00106]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Elliott and Huang’s invention to include wherein the wiper wheel includes a radially extending slot, the wiper is disposed in the slot; wherein the wiper is press-fit attached to the wiper wheel in the slot.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Elliott and Huang’s invention for at least the purpose of securing the brush to the arm for strong attachment and prevention of failure, and for allowing ease of exchange/replacement when needing replacement from wear or deterioration.
Regarding claims 13–15, the combination of Elliott and Huang do not appear to teach, “wherein the water sensor includes a sensor foil, the exterior sensor surface is formed on the sensor foil; wherein the sensor foil is formed of glass; wherein the sensor foil is translucent.” However, Lee teaches the deficiencies of Elliott and Huang (see Fig. 24–32, ref. # 2450 wiping glass 2416 of sensor 2622, 2824; see para. [00101–00109]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Elliott and Huang’s invention to include wherein the water sensor includes a sensor foil, the exterior sensor surface is formed on the sensor foil; wherein the sensor foil is formed of glass; wherein the sensor foil is translucent.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Elliott and Huang’s invention for at least the purpose of providing protection to the internal electrical components from corrosion or increased wear when contacting the water/chemicals, and further providing translucent glass foil which allows the sensor to detect various properties of water while simultaneously protecting the electrical components.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott and Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pierik et al. (US Pub. # 20180275313), hereinafter referred to as Pierik.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Elliott and Huang do not appear to teach, “wherein the water sensor is a hydrophone.” However, the use of a hydrophone as a sensor for detecting the surrounding environment or water characteristics is well known in the art of measuring and testing, as evidenced by Pierik (see para. [0008, 0034, 0168, 0210, 0213]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Elliott and Huang’s invention to include wherein the water sensor is a hydrophone.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Elliott and Huang’s invention for at least the purpose of detecting information of the surrounding environment where the buoy is placed for more advanced data gather and accurate results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 16 (and their related dependents) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852