SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SIMULATING
WATER INTRUSION IN A STRUCTURE AND
TESTING SUMP PUMP PERFORMANCE
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
DRAWINGS
The submitted drawings have been considered and approved.
TITLE
The submitted title has been considered and approved.
ABSTRACT
The submitted abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atherton et al. (2008/0252447).
With respect to independent claim 16, Atherton et al. set forth a method for testing water mitigation equipment, the method comprising:
initiating a flow of a liquid into a testing sump (catch pan 60), wherein the testing sump includes a testing cavity (area within catch pan 60) and a device (50) for testing positioned within the testing cavity;
receiving, at a processor (20), test data from the device (50);
determining, by the processor, that the device passes or fails water mitigation based on the test data (ie. activation of alarm or not alarm; and
outputting, by the processor, a pass or fail result (see alarm 122) for the device.
Atherton et al. fail to set forth that the flow of liquid is initiated from a holding sump.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Atherton et al. teaching to interpret the initial source of the liquid in Atherton et al. as a holding sump as claimed. The motivation being that Atherton et al. teach that the leaking water source is a sink drain pipe (paragraph 21). Thus, the water originates from the sink wherein the sink could be interpreted as the holding sump because the sink holds water therein.
With respect to claim 17, Atherton et al. suggest initiating the flow of the liquid by actuating of a valve (faucet) that causes the liquid to flow from a liquid reservoir to a holding
cavity (drain pipe) of the holding sump (sink) due to gravitational force; and activating a pump that causes the liquid to flow from the holding cavity of the holding sump due to the testing cavity (area within catch pan 60) of the testing sump (pan 60).
With respect to claim 18, Atherton et al. determine that the device (50) passes or fails water mitigation by determining, by the processor, an operational performance (determining saturation level) of the device in removing water from the testing cavity of the testing sump.
With respect to claim 19, Atherton et al. determine that the device passes or fails water mitigation by determining an operational performance (saturation level) of the device (50) in detecting a level of the liquid within the testing cavity of the testing sump.
With respect to claim 20, Atherton et al. suggest the device passes or fails water mitigation by analyzing the testing data using a machine learning algorithms (ie. determining whether to activate the alarm 122).
Allowable Subject Matter
After a search of the prior art, claims 1 - 15 have been found to be allowable over the prior art.
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a return line coupled between the testing sump and the liquid reservoir to allow the liquid to flow from the testing cavity of the testing sump to the supply cavity of the liquid reservoir,
in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 2 - 10 depend from claim 1 and have been found to be allowable for, at least, that reason.
With respect to independent claim 11, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a return line coupled between the testing sump and the liquid reservoir to allow the liquid to flow from the testing cavity of the testing sump to the supply cavity of the liquid reservoir,
in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 12 - 15 depend from claim 11 and have been found to be allowable for, at least, that reason.
CITED DOCUMENTS
The Applicant’s attention is directed to the “PTO-892” form for the relevant art made of record at the time of this Office Action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855