DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 9 March 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant argues the motivation to combine Hui and Porat is hindsight as Hui pertains to a floating housing and Porat’s device operates at the bottom of the pool. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The rejection utilizes information known from the cited references and the combination is obvious for the benefit of utilizing a structure known in the art to float, as taught by Hui [0035], should the surface base unit fall into the pool. Furthermore, the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 159 6 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting the rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning). One of ordinary skill in the art would know, at the time of applicant’s filing, it was/is beneficial to have electrical devices be buoyant and waterproof when utilized in an aquatic setting, including swimming pools, to minimize damage to the electrical components and make retrievability easy should the device fall into the body of water. Note the Examiner does not make an argument that any of Porat’s elements that are intended to be submerged are being modified to float.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant further argues the combination of Porat and Higgins is non-analogous art and the connectors are structurally incompatible, therefore the combination is improper. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Additionally, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Higgins is relevant to the problem of waterproofing connectors.
Applicant’s remaining arguments 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 13, “the surface based unit” should read “the surface base unit”.
Regarding Claim 13, “the client device” in the surfaced based unit clause should read “a client device” and “a client device” in the a computer application clause should read “the client device”.
Regarding Claim 21, “a client device” should read “the client device”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porat (WO 2004/019295), in view of Mehrotra et el. (US 2020/0043574).
Regarding Claim 1, Porat discloses a monitoring unit for monitoring the condition of pool water, in at least Figure 3, the monitoring device comprising:
a sensing device (12) configured to be submerged in the pool water (Figure 3), the sensing device including one or more water parameter sensors (via 20, 23), wherein the one or more water parameter sensors are operable to measure at least one parameter of the water (Page 11, lines 17 – 22);
a surface base unit (40) disposed to be out of the pool water (Figure 3), the surface base unit including electronic components configured to receive a measurement data of at least one parameter of the pool water from the sensing device and to wirelessly transmit the measurement (via 102) (Page 12, lines 6 – 8; Page 14, lines 9 – 22), wherein the surface base unit includes an input device (48) (Page 12, lines 8 – 13), wherein the surface base unit transmits measured data to a client device (110) (Figure 3); and
a submersible cable connection assembly (38) removably coupled to the surface base unit outside of the pool water (via 50) (Figure 2) and permanently coupled to the sensing device that is submerged in the pool water (Figure 3).
Porat fails to expressly disclose the input device is operable to cause the sensing device to initiate a new water sampling measurement outside a sampling schedule and transmit the resulting measured data to the client device.
Mehrotra teaches an input device (button) is operable to cause the sensing device to initiate a new sampling measurement outside a sampling schedule (analyze a sample) and transmit the resulting measured data to a client device (mobile accessory device) [0011].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Porat so that input device is configured to cause the sensing device to initiate a new water sampling measurement outside a sampling schedule and transmit the resulting measured data to the client device for the benefit of initiating sampling when desired, as taught by Mehrotra [0029].
Regarding Claim 2, Porat discloses the submersible cable connection assembly includes: a first end that is electrically coupled via a to the sensing device (Figure 3); and a second end that terminates in an electrical connector (via 50) operable to be removably coupled to the surface base unit (Figure 2).
Porat fails to expressly disclose the connection is waterproof and the electrical connector is watertight, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized the connections are made in or in proximity to water and water is well-known to adversely affect powered electrical components.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Porat so that the connection is waterproof and the electrical connector is watertight for the benefit of protecting the electrical components from water exposure to prevent rust and/or erroneous data/measurements.
Regarding Claim 13, Porat discloses a pool water monitoring system, in at least Figure 3, comprising:
a monitoring unit comprising a surface based unit (40), a submersible cable connection assembly (38), and a submerged sensing device (12), wherein:
the submerged sensing device is configured to measure water parameters (via 20, 23) (Page 11, lines 17 – 22),
the surface based unit is coupled to a first end of the submersible cable connection assembly (Figure 3), and the submerged sensing device is coupled to a second end of the submersible cable connection assembly (Figure 3), and is configured to receive the measured water parameters via the submersible cable connection (Page 12, lines 6 – 8; Page 14, lines 9 – 22), and includes an input device (48), distinct from a power switch of the surface based unit (Page 12, lines 8 – 13), the surface based unit transmits measured data to a client device (110) (Figure 3); and
a computer application executable on a client device (via 110), wherein the surface base unit of the monitoring unit is operable to wirelessly communicate with the computer application (via 102) (Page 12, lines 6 – 8; Page 14, lines 9 – 22), and when the computer application is executing on the client device, wherein the client device is operable to:
receive the measured water parameters transmitted by the surface base unit (Figure 3).
Porat fails to expressly disclose the second end of the submersible cable connection assembly is water-tight; the input device when activated causes the submerged sensing device to initiate a new sampling measurement of the water parameters outside a sampling schedule and transmit the newly measured data to the client device; the client device includes a touchscreen communicatively coupled to the computer application; the client device is operable to: evaluate the measured water parameters; and present indications on the touchscreen of the measured water parameters and evaluation results of the measured water parameters.
Mehrotra teaches an input device (button) that when activated causes the sensing device to initiate a new sampling measurement outside a sampling schedule (analyze a sample) and transmit the newly resulting measured data to a client device (mobile accessory device) [0011], the client device includes a touchscreen communicatively coupled to a computer application [0028]
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Porat so that input device is configured to cause the sensing device to initiate a new water sampling measurement outside a sampling schedule and transmit the resulting measured data to the client device, and have the client device include a touchscreen communicatively coupled to a computer application for the benefit of initiating sampling when desired, as taught by Mehrotra [0029].
Furthermore, in an alternative embodiment, Porat teaches evaluating the measured water parameters; and presenting indications on a screen of the measured water parameters and evaluation results of the measured water parameters (Page 12, line 14 – Page 13, line 13).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination by combining Porat’s embodiments so that the client device is also operable to evaluate the measured water parameters; and present indications on the touchscreen of the measured water parameters and evaluation results of the measured water parameters for the benefit of informing the user of any proactive or remedial action, as taught by Porat (Page 13, lines 3 – 4) when the user is not located at the surface based unit.
Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized the electrical connections are made in or in proximity to water and water is well-known to adversely affect powered electrical components.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so the second end of the submersible cable connection assembly is water-tight for the benefit of protecting the electrical components from water exposure to prevent rust and/or erroneous data/measurements.
Regarding Claim 14, Porat discloses the: the first end of the submersible cable connection assembly is electrically coupled via a to the sensing device (Figure 3); and the second end terminates in an electrical connector (via 50) operable to be removably coupled to the surface base unit (Figure 2).
Porat fails to expressly disclose the connection is waterproof and the electrical connector is watertight, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized the connections are made in or in proximity to water and water is well-known to adversely affect powered electrical components.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Porat so that the connection is waterproof and the electrical connector is watertight providing a water-tight second end for the benefit of protecting the electrical components from water exposure to prevent rust and/or erroneous data/measurements.
Regarding Claim 18, Porat discloses a communication network configured to communicate with a server (i.e. Internet), wherein the client device and/or the surface unit is operable to communicate with the server via the communication network (Page 15, lines 1 – 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Porat discloses the surface unit is configured to transfer measured water parameters to the server (as this is the data the client device ultimately receives) (Page 12, lines 6 – 8; Page 14, lines 9 – 22; Page 15, lines 1 – 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Porat discloses transferring measured water parameters and evaluation results of the measured water parameters, remedial action messages from the server, wherein the remedial action messages are based on the measured water parameters, and present the received remedial action messages on a screen (Page 12, line 14 – Page 13, line 13).
The combination fails to expressly disclose the client device is configured to: transfer measured water parameters and evaluation results of the measured water parameters to the server; in response to the transferred measured water parameters and/or evaluation results, receive remedial action messages from the server, wherein the remedial action messages are based on the measured water parameters; and present the received remedial action messages on the touchscreen of the client device i.e. the offloading processing to the server and receiving the results to the client device post processing.
As Porat already specifically teaches the claimed processing but not specifically where the processing occurs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination by allowing processors with more power i.e. the server perform the processing steps and have the client device receive the ultimate results for the benefit of increasing the speed of calculations/decisions and saving memory on the client device.
Claim(s) 3 – 6, 8 – 12, and 15 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porat (WO 2004/019295), in view of Mehrotra et el. (US 2020/0043574), in further view of Hui et al. (US 2013/0206660).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Porat fails to expressly disclose the surface base unit includes: an upper housing portion; an inner annular portion; an inner top portion; and a lower housing portion, wherein the upper housing, the inner annular portion, the inner top portion, and the lower housing are structured to provide a water-tight seal when operatively coupled together.
Hui teaches a surface base unit, in at least Figures 3 – 6C, includes: an upper housing portion (102); an inner annular portion (34); an inner top portion (32); and a lower housing portion (36).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the surface base unit includes: an upper housing portion; an inner annular portion; an inner top portion; and a lower housing portion for the benefit of utilizing a structure known in the art to float, as taught by Hui [0035], should the surface base unit fall into the pool.
Nevertheless, the combination fails to expressly disclose the upper housing, the inner annular portion, the inner top portion, and the lower housing are structured to provide a water-tight seal when operatively coupled together; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized should the elements not be water-tight, the electronics would be exposed to water and the devices ability to float would be hampered.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination to that the upper housing, the inner annular portion, the inner top portion, and the lower housing are structured to provide a water-tight seal when operatively coupled together for the benefit of preventing water from entering and thus damaging the electronics and further aiding in the ability for the combination to float.
Regarding Claim 4, Hui teaches the inner top portion of the surface base unit includes: a power source housing area (area where 122 is) configured to accommodate a power source (120) and a power source connection bus [0047], wherein the power source connection bus includes a power supply connector to supply power to other components of the surface base unit (to the on off switch) [0047].
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Hui teaches the lower housing portion of the surface base unit is configured to house a surface base unit circuitry (e.g. circuitry for 142).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Porat discloses the surface base unit includes an outer data port connector (50) (Figure 2), wherein the outer data port connector is configured to electrically couple the surface base unit to the submersible cable connection assembly (Figure 3). Porat further inherently disclose an inner data port connection coupled to surface base circuitry (this is inherent as it is the only way for electrical communication between 50 and circuitry inside 40), wherein the combination renders obvious the lower housing portion having the outer data port connector and inner data port connection.
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination teaches the lower housing portion of the surface base unit includes: an attachment area configured to receive attachment devices enabling the surface base unit to be affixed to structures of a body holding the pool water (the lower housing portion has area which can be configured to receive anything including attachment devices e.g. via screws).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination teaches the inner annular portion is configured as a circular arc having an opening operable to allow space for an inner data port connection to be accessible to an outer data port connector (Hui, Figure 6C, the inner annular portion is configured as a circular arc having an opening centrally to allow space for anything including connections/connectors).
Regarding Claim 10, Hui teaches the inner annular portion is further configured with fixation openings (see openings formed 34 by horizontal straps) to enable fastening devices to be inserted through the fixation openings and into securing points in the lower housing portion (Figure 6C).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 11, Hui teaches when the fastening devices are inserted through the fixation openings and into the securing points, the inner annular portion is affixed to the lower housing portion (Figure 6C)
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 10 above.
Regarding Claim 12, Hui teaches the upper housing portion is configured to removably couple to the inner annular portion of the surface base unit to conceal fixation openings formed in the inner annular portion (Figure 5).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porat (WO 2004/019295), in view of Mehrotra et el. (US 2020/0043574), in further view of Hui et al. (US 2013/0206660), in further view of Higgins et al. (US 2022/0127162).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination fails to expressly disclose the outer data port connector comprises: a cover configured to provide a watertight seal when the submersible cable connection assembly is removed from the surface base unit.
Higgins teaches an outer data port connector (USB) comprises: a cover (420) configured to provide a watertight seal (waterproof) when a cable connection assembly is removed from a surface base unit [0027].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination so that the outer data port connector comprises: a cover configured to provide a watertight seal when the submersible cable connection assembly is removed from the surface base unit for the benefit of protecting the connector, as taught by Higgins [0027], and further preventing water from entering the surface base unit preventing rust and safeguarding the electrical components.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porat (WO 2004/019295), in view of Mehrotra et el. (US 2020/0043574), in further view of Anjum et al. (US 2016/0033437).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination fails to expressly disclose the surface base unit is configured to separately control a sampling frequency at which the sensing device measures water parameters and a reporting frequency at which accumulated measured data is transmitted to a client device, wherein the sampling frequency and the reporting frequency are independently adjustable.
Anjum teaches a sampling frequency at which a sensing device (sensor) takes measurements [0022, 0033, 0040] and a reporting frequency at which accumulated measured data is transmitted to a client device (Router/Hub), wherein the sampling frequency and reporting frequency are independently adjustable [0022, 0033, 0044].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants invention to modify the combination so that the surface base unit is configured to separately control a sampling frequency at which the sensing device measures water parameters and a reporting frequency at which accumulated measured data is transmitted to a client device, wherein the sampling frequency and the reporting frequency are independently adjustable for the benefit of optimizing measurements and data transfer according to specific conditions, as taught by Anjum [0040].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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 A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855