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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 and 37 in the reply filed on 6/2/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-11, 13-24, 26-28, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steininger et al. (US 5,895,565 in IDS) in view of Detter et al. (US 2018/0111538) and Steinbrueck et al. (US 2009/0200245 in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 37, Steininger teaches a water quality monitoring system for a bathing unit system, comprising: a. a monitoring device (32 34 36 44 46 23) configured to be positioned in-line with the circulation system of the bathing unit system, the monitoring device comprising at least one sensor configured to obtain water quality measurements conveying one or more characteristics of water within the circulation system; b. a communication module (28) in communication with the monitoring device for receiving the water quality measurements, the communication module receiving operational information conveying status information for one or more bathing unit components in the set of bathing unit components; c. the communication module being configured to establish a communication channel with a remote server (68 69) over a computer network and being programmed for selectively transmitting the water quality measurements obtained by the sensor of the monitoring device to the remote server at least in part by processing the status information such that at least some of the water quality measurements obtained by the monitoring device (Fig. 1 and C2/L40-C7/L38).
Steininger teaches a flow sensor (52) that would indirectly provide an activation status for the pump as with the pump off, no flow would be recorded. However, Steininger fails to explicitly teach the status information conveying an activation status for the pump, the activation status for the pump conveying one of the activated state and the deactivated state. However, Steinbrueck teaches that in monitoring and controlling water quality in an aquatic facility, pump activation status indicates an operation associated with the pump, such as adjusting or controlling water quality parameters ([0007] and [0020]-[0022]). As such, it would have been obvious to include monitoring and providing information about the pump activation status in order to provide information on when an operation associated with the pump is being performed.
Steininger teaches data is sent but does not teach that the data from the sensor is omitted when the activation status for the pump conveys that the pump is in the deactivated state. While this would be common sense aspect to only provide data when the system is operational rather than providing repetitive readings when water is stagnant in the pipes, Steininger fails to specifically address this limitation. Detter teaches that it is known to provide data to network/server during active use but than stop transmitting data during the idle state of the system thereby providing the desired data only when the system is in use ([0230]-[0231]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to stop sending the data when the system is in idle state, which would be shown either by a no flow rate reading in Steininger flow sensor (52) or when the status of the pump is shown as deactivated, or both.
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 21, it is submitted that the activation status stated in Steinbrueck would be accomplished via tags conveying the activation status.
Regarding claim 2 and 16, Steininger teaches that the water quality analysis data derived at least in part by processing the water quality measurements transmitted to the remote server via sensors (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3 and 17-18, it is submitted that the remote server includes an analytics engine capable of deriving and conveying water quality analysis data (Fig. 1 and C2/L40-C7/L38). It is noted that due to the system in idle state and no information is transmitted, any readings during that time would de-emphasized or discarded as they would not be considered when the system is in non-operational state.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 19-20, Steininger teaches that the remote server is capable of transmitting the data to a user device (computer phone).
Regarding claim 7-8, 10, and 22-23, it is submitted that the processes controlled include the injection of sanitizers, which would inherently have an active state when injected and an inactive state when the sanitizer is not injected, and the communication module would track and control the status and operation of the sanitizer according to the desired treatment protocol.
Regarding claim 9-10 and 24, it is submitted that the processes controlled include the operation of the heater to control the temperature of the water, which would inherently have an active state when the heater is on and an inactive state when the heater is not on, and the communication module would track and control the status and operation of the heater according to the desired treatment protocol.
Regarding claim 11, it is submitted that the processes controlled include the control of the pH by injection of chemicals, which would inherently have an active state when injected and an inactive state when the pH control chemicals are not injected, and the communication module would track and control the status and operation of the pH control means according to the desired treatment protocol.
Regarding claim 13 and 26, as discussed above, Steininger teaches a flow sensor (52), which would provide data based on the flow within the system.
Regarding claim 14 and 27, Steininger teaches that sensors monitoring pH, ORP, and temperature are used (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, it is submitted that the communication module in Steininger also performs the part of a controller for controlling the various operations of the system.
Claim(s) 12 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steininger et al. (US 5,895,565 in IDS) in view of Detter et al. (US 2018/0111538) and Steinbrueck et al. (US 2009/0200245 in IDS) as applied above, and further in view of Roy et al. (US 2020/0319621).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Steininger fails to teach a sensor for detecting a status of bathing unit cover and transmitting the status/tag of the cover as claimed. Roy teaches that it is known to provide a sensor that detects when the cover is on the spa/pool and then transmit the status/tag of the cover placement via a communication module as claimed ([0240] and [0281]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a sensor for determining the status of a cover for the spa and then transmit the data as claimed in order to allow the operator/user knowledge of the cover placement if desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights