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 Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
For example, claim 11 refers back to claim 10, while claim 18 refers back to claim 4.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomasson (US 2009/0211567) in view of Branecky et al (US 2020/0041168).
Regarding claim 1, Thomasson discloses, a control method of a heating device (solar panel 11 converts
photons from sun 12 into an electric current. The electric current is applied to heater element 14 by control circuit 15. Heater element 14 converts the electric current to heat, thereby heating the water in tank 19. Solar panel 11 can be of any current or future design. The only constraint on the design is that heater element 14 be compatible with the voltage and current produced by panel, [0020], the heating device comprising: a first water storage unit provided with a first heating mechanism; a second water storage unit communicated with the first water storage unit and disposed downstream of the first water storage unit, the second water storage unit being provided with a second heating mechanism (Water heater 31 has an inlet coupled to the output of tank 19 by pipe 32. Tank 19 is heated independently of the operation of water heater 31.Thus, the invention can be used with existing installations without modification to the existing installation, except for the plumbing connection. That is a thermostat or other mechanism (not shown) controls to operation of heat source 33, which can be oil, gas, electric, or even another solar heater, [0024]; a water inlet pipe communicated with the first water storage unit; a water outlet pipe communicated with the second water storage unit (cold water entering inlet 27 mixes with the water stored in tank 19, cooling the stored water. Similarly, the warmed water entering tank 31 from pipe 32 mixes with the water in tank 31, transferring heat to the water in tank 31. Thus, even though the water in tank 19 may be at 160" F., the water is isolated from a user and is cooled by
mixing in tank 31 , [0026]; and a first temperature detection device configured to measure a temperature (Microprocessor 16 has several sense inputs, including photocell 21, thermocouple 23, and thermocouple 25. Photocell 21 provides a signal representing the level of available sunlight. Thermocouple 23 produces a signal representing the temperature of the water at the bottom of tank 19. Thermocouple 25 produces a signal representing the temperature of the water at the top of tank 19. Other transducers could be used as well; e.g. to sense whether or not tank 19 contains water, at least above the height of heater element 14, and to sense the flow of water to and from the tank. Water flow can be sensed indirectly as rate of change of temperature, [0023)),
Thomasson fails to fairly teach or suggest the control method comprises: when the temperature detected by the first temperature detection device is less than or equal to a first preset value, controlling the first heating mechanism to heat, while the second heating mechanism heating in a first preset power; and when the temperature detected by the first temperature detection device is less than or equal to a second preset value that is less than the first preset value, controlling the second heating mechanism to heat in a second preset power that is greater than the first preset power.
Branecky discloses, a first and second heating element in a water heating device. The first temperature detection device is configured to measure a first temperature, and when the temperature is below a first threshold, the first heating mechanism is activated. [0041] When the second temperature is below a second threshold, the second heating element is activated. (See [0041] and [0042])
Applicant claims a method, the method does not entirely depend on the structure claimed in the preamble. The method would not be performed differently if the heating elements are in the same or different water tanks.
It would have been obvious to adapt Thomasson in view of Branecky to provide when the temperature detected by the first temperature detection device is less than or equal to a first preset value, controlling the first heating mechanism to heat, while the second heating mechanism heating in a first preset power; and when the temperature detected by the first temperature detection device is less than or equal to a second preset value that is less than the first preset value, controlling the second heating mechanism to heat in a second preset power that is greater than the first preset power for maintaining a consistent temperature throughout the system.
Regarding claim 2, Thomasson fails to disclose the second water storage unit is located above the first water storage unit. Structural limitations in method claims not disclosed by the references should not be given patentable weight. This argument is applicable to claims drawn to structure and not claims drawn to a method. To be entitled to such weight in method claims, the recited structural limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. It would have been obvious to located the second water storage unit above the first based on space requirements, gravity, or any other desired design or operation of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights