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 Interpretation
Regarding claim 1. The claim recites, “… wherein the plurality of hot water supply devices are configured to communicate with each other via a water-supply-to-water-supply-communication-path …” This limitation is being interpreted consistent with at least paras. 53 and 59 of the Applicant’s PGPUB, which describes the water heaters being connected to each other, either with a wireless or wired connection.
Regarding claim 7. The claim recites, “… the hot water supply devices other than the first hot water supply device to not include a wireless communication module.” Examiner is interpreting the wireless communication modules of the hot water supply devices other than the first hot water supply device, i.e. the wireless communication modules of claim 7, as not necessarily being “adapted to wirelessly communicate with a mobile terminal”, as required for the wireless communication module of the first hot water supply device, recited in claim 1. In other words, prior art in which all hot water supply devices have a wireless communication module, but only the first hot water supply device is adapted to communicate with a mobile terminal would not read on the claim. The claim is substantially being interpreted as requiring hot water supply devices other than the first hot water supply device to be incapable of wireless communication.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20240410623 A1 to Ashley.
Regarding claim 1. Ashley teaches a hot water supply system, comprising:
a plurality of hot water supply devices (fig. 2, water heaters 202-218), comprising:
a first hot water supply device (fig. 2, water heater 202, also referred to as lead unit 203), comprising:
a first hot water supply wireless communication module (fig. 2, controller 220), comprising a transceiver and a receiver (para. 16, where wireless communication involves transmitting and receiving), adapted to wirelessly communicate with a mobile terminal (para. 16, “Controller 220 and/or controllers 222-238 may also be in communication with remote controller 240 and/or user device 250.”);
a second hot water supply device (fig. 2, any one of units 204-218);
wherein the plurality of hot water supply devices are configured to communicate with each other via a water-supply-to-water-supply-communication-path (para. 16, “Controller 220 and controllers 222-238 may communicate wirelessly with one another.” See also left right arrow in fig. 2 between unit 202 and 204-218),
wherein the first hot water supply device is configured to be paired with the mobile terminal to establish a first wireless communication path between the first hot water supply device and the mobile terminal for transmitting and receiving data (para. 16, “Controller 220 and/or controllers 222-238 may also be in communication with remote controller 240 and/or user device 250.”),
wherein hot water supply devices other than the first hot water supply device are configured to transmit and receive data to and from the mobile terminal via the first hot water supply device (para. 19, “Remote controller 240 may communicate instructions and commands to the lead unit and the lead unit may wirelessly communicate the operational instructions and other information to the followers.” And also para. 20, “Lead unit 203 may be tasked with communicating with remote controller 240 and wirelessly communicating instructions and other messages to follower units 239 based on instructions and information provided from remote controller 240.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
808
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5. Ashley teaches the hot water supply system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of hot water supply devices, further comprises:
a third hot water supply device (fig. 2, the system includes at least three water heaters).
Regarding claim 6. Ashley teaches the hot water supply system according to claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of hot water supply devices comprises:
an inlet pipe (see below, “first supply of water”);
an outlet pipe (see below, “adapted to heat a first supply of water”);
a heat exchanger, comprising a heat exchange tubing adapted to exchange heat (see below, “a first heat exchanger adapted to heat”);
a processor (claim 1, “the first water heater comprising a first controller and a first heat exchanger adapted to heat a first supply of water” Therefore, heating a first supply of water would be understood to require at least an inlet, for the first supply, and an outlet, for the heated water, and the heat exchanger comprising a tubing to exchange heat, and the controller would be a processor).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to Revolution Wi-Fi, Optimized Roaming, RSSI Low Check, RX-SOP, Oh My!, published in 2014.
Regarding claim 4. Ashley teaches the hot water supply system according to claim 1, further comprising:
the mobile terminal (fig. 2, remote controller 240 and/or user device 250);
wherein the mobile terminal includes a mobile terminal wireless communication module including a transceiver and a receiver (para. 17, where wireless communication would include transmitting and receiving),
But fails to teach wherein the mobile terminal is configured not to pair with any hot water supply device which has an RSSI value below or equal to a predetermined value.
It is known in the art from Revolution Wi-Fi to not establish a connection between a terminal with any device having an RSSI value below or equal to a predetermined value (see optimized roaming and/or RSSI low check, which each provide for preventing wireless connections having an insufficient RSSI value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Ashley to prevent water heaters having an insufficient RSSI value from connecting with the mobile terminal. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of preventing weak connections, as suggested by Revolution Wi-Fi in RSSI low check, “They never get stronger than a -80 RSSI, but their mobile device prefers WiFi over 3G/4G. The client tries to connect, sometimes succeeds sometimes fails. Either way, it's a poor connection, at best, leading to a poor user experience.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2. Ashley, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. Ashley teaches the hot water supply system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a communication relay apparatus (fig. 2, remote controller 240 of the previously identified mobile terminal), comprising a processor configured to communicate with each of the plurality of hot water supply devices (para. 17),
wherein each of the plurality of hot water supply devices are directly wired to the communication relay apparatus (para. 17, “Remote controller 240 may be any computing device (e.g., one or more servers) with one or more processors and may be capable of communicating, via a wired or wireless connection, with at least on one of controller 220 and controllers 222-238.”),
The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the communication relay apparatus is configured to receive a designation instruction from the mobile terminal via the first hot water supply device”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Ashley teaches the first hot water supply device (202) configured to receive a designation instruction from the mobile terminal (250) via the communication relay apparatus (240) (paras. 18-19, last sentence of each). Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration of Ashley to arrive at the system as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
816
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3. Ashley, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the plurality of hot water supply devices are wired with each other in series”, in addition to the rest of the claim, in particular the upstream or downstream relay of information from the first hot water supply device.
Instead, Ashley describes water heaters connected in series, i.e. daisy chained, with reference to fig. 1, i.e. the prior art; however, the reference teaches against daisy chaining water heaters for the reasons listed in para. 5, and instead provides the configuration of the various embodiments to overcome the shortfalls of the prior art. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Ashley to have water heaters connected in series, as claimed, at least for the reasons described in para. 5.
Regarding claim 7. Ashley, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the hot water supply devices other than the first hot water supply device do not include a wireless communication module.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, consistent with the claim interpretation section above, Ashley teaches all water heaters as having a controller 220-238 overseeing wireless communication, paras. 15-16. Furthermore, while Ashley teaches the remote controller 240 being connected “with at least on one of controller 220 and controllers 222-238.”, para. 17, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure only one water heater with a wireless communication module, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights