DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed November 17, 2025.
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 Status
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 2-7, 19, and 21-37 are as originally filed.
Therefore, claims 1-37 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
In response to the filed claim amendment, the rejection under 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 recites “wherein the body is narrower than 2 cm.” Although not explicit in the claim, this claim is interpreted as referring to the width of the body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-20, 22-24, 27-28, 31, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chapman et al. (Chapman; US Patent #6,639,517).
As to claim 1, Chapman teaches a leak detection apparatus (Column 3, Lines 34-53 teach a leak detection mat) comprising:
an installable detector comprising a plurality of spaced apart electrical electrodes (Column 3, Lines 34-53 teach a base substrate with first and second electrodes); and
a controller operably interfacing the plurality of electrical electrodes, wherein the controller is configured for detecting a leak by detecting current flow through water pooled between the electrodes (Column 3, Lines 34-53 teach a sensing and transmitting circuit connected to the electrodes; Column 4, Line 61 – Column 5, Line 8 teaches electrical current being conducted between the electrodes when an absorbent layer connecting the electrodes is dampened); and
wherein the leak is characterized as moisture or pooled water (Column 1, Lines 20-25 teach detecting the presence of an undesirable accumulation of water; Column 1, Line 65 – Column 2, Line 6 teaches detecting a volume of water of at least a minimum height as a pool of water; Column 2, Lines 42-63 teach water diffusing through an absorbent layer between electrodes; Column 4, Line 61 – Column 5, Line 8 teaches liquid dripping onto an absorbent layer until the dampened area extends over some point on each of two electrodes to trigger an alarm).
As to claim 2, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches wherein the detector comprises a flexible body (Column 3, Lines 54-62 teach a flexible base).
As to claim 3, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 2, Chapman teaches wherein the flexible body comprises rubber (Column 3, Lines 54-62 teach a flexible, rubber base).
As to claim 4, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 2, Chapman teaches wherein the flexible body is elongate (Column 3, Lines 54-62 teach the base has a length and width; Figures 1 and 2 show a rectangular shape where the length is larger than the width).
As to claim 7, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, Chapman teaches wherein the body comprises the plurality of electrical electrodes therealong (Figures 1 and 2 show electrodes 103 and 104; Column 4, Lines 36-50 teach the proximal ends of electrodes disposed along a first edge and distal ends terminating along the edge opposite the first edge of the base substrate).
As to claim 8, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, Chapman teaches wherein the body comprises electrical electrodes embedded therein (Figures 1 and 2 show the electrodes 103 and 104 within the mat 101 between base substrate 102 and absorbent layer 105).
As to claim 10, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, Chapman teaches wherein the body comprises a number of sides and wherein the electrodes are located on each of the number of sides (Figure 1 shows 4 sides with electrodes present at all 4 sides).
As to claim 11, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches wherein the flexible body takes the form of a rectangular mat (Figures 1-2 show a rectangular shape; Column 3, Lines 34-53 teach a leak detection mat).
As to claim 12, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 11, Chapman teaches wherein the mat comprises a matrix of the electrodes (Figures 1 and 2).
As to claim 14, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, Chapman teaches wherein the mat comprises tear-off sections or sections that can be cut away to adjust the size of the mat without affecting the electrical conductivity of remaining electrodes (Column 4, Lines 36-50 teach connecting mats).
As to claim 15, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches wherein the controller comprises a signal output which is activated when a leak is detected (Column 3, Lines 34-53 teach transmitting a coded signal upon a significant decrease in electrical resistance between the pair of electrodes).
As to claim 17, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches the apparatus further comprising an electrode interface which applies voltage to alternative electrodes and which has current sensors operably coupled thereto to detect current flow (Column 4, Lines 36-50 teach means for connecting electrodes to the sensing and transmitting circuit; Column 5, Lines 16-45 teach a source voltage and detecting current flow).
As to claim 18, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches the apparatus further comprising an electrode interface interfacing the electrodes (Column 4, Lines 36-50 teach means for connecting electrodes to the sensing and transmitting circuit) and wherein the electrode interface is configured to differentiate between the moisture and the pooled water (Column 1, Lines 20-25 teach detecting the presence of an undesirable accumulation of water; Column 1, Line 65 – Column 2, Line 6 teaches detecting a volume of water of at least a minimum height as a pool of water; Column 2, Lines 42-63 teach water diffusing through an absorbent layer between electrodes; Column 4, Line 61 – Column 5, Line 8 teaches liquid dripping onto an absorbent layer until the dampened area extends over some point on each of two electrodes to trigger an alarm).
As to claim 19, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, Chapman teaches wherein the electrode interface is configured to differentiate between moisture and pooled water by a current threshold (Column 4, Line 61 – Column 5, Line 8 teaches liquid dripping onto an absorbent layer and triggering an alarm when the absorbent layer is damp at both electrodes to conduct current between the electrodes such that a threshold current is conducted in order to trigger an alarm).
As to claim 20, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, Chapman teaches wherein the controller is configured for generating an alert if signals from the electrode interface indicate this is leaking (Column 4, Line 61 – Column 5, Line 8 teaches liquid dripping onto an absorbent layer and triggering an alarm when the absorbent layer is damp at both electrodes to conduct current between the electrodes such that a threshold current is conducted in order to trigger an alarm).
As to claim 22, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches wherein the controller is integrally formed with the body so that the detector can be installed as a single unit (Figures 1 and 3 show the sensing and transmitting circuit 106 formed on the base substrate 102 as a detection mat 101).
As to claim 23, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches wherein the controller is connected to the detector by electrical leads (Figures 1 and 3 show leads connecting the sensing and transmitting circuit 106 to terminal ends 107 of the electrodes 103 and 104).
As to claim 24, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches wherein the controller comprises an internal battery supply (Column 6, Lines 17-22 teach a battery power supply).
As to claim 27, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches wherein the controller comprises a data interface for wireless communication with a receiver (Column 6, Lines 1-8 teach a transmitter chip).
As to claim 28, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 27, Chapman teaches wherein the data interface is a short-range wireless interface (Column 6, Lines 1-8 teach a Reynolds Electronics TWS-434 transmitter which is a short range transmitter).
As to claim 31, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 27, Chapman teaches wherein, in use, when detecting a leak, the controller transmits an alert via the data interface to the receiver (Column 3, Lines 34-53 teaches transmitting a signal upon significant decrease in resistance; Column 6, Lines 1-8).
As to claim 35, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, Chapman teaches wherein, in use, the controller detects a size of a leak depending on the number of electrodes exhibiting current flow (Column 4, Line 61 – Column 5, Line 8 teaches liquid dripping onto an absorbent layer and triggering an alarm when the absorbent layer is damp at both electrodes to conduct current between the electrodes such that the sensing and transmitting circuit can differentiate between dripping water and a sufficiently dampened absorbent layer).
As to claim 36, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 35, Chapman wherein the controller categorises the type of leak depending on the number of electrodes exhibiting current flow (Column 4, Line 61 – Column 5, Line 8 teaches liquid dripping onto an absorbent layer and triggering an alarm when the absorbent layer is damp at both electrodes to conduct current between the electrodes such that the sensing and transmitting circuit can differentiate between dripping water and a sufficiently dampened absorbent layer such as a minor leak or major leak).
As to claim 37, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 35, Chapman teaches wherein the controller adjusts an output signal depending on the number of electrodes exhibiting current flow (Column 4, Line 61 – Column 5, Line 8 teaches liquid dripping onto an absorbent layer and triggering an alarm when the absorbent layer is damp at both electrodes to conduct current between the electrodes such that the output varies from when either 0 or 1 of the electrodes is damp to when both electrodes are damp; Column 5, Line 16 – Column 6, Line 8).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (Chapman; US Patent #6,639,517) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jang (US PG Pub #2017/0227415).
As to claim 5, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the body is longer than 30 cm.
In the field of leak sensors, Jang teaches wherein the body is longer than 30 cm (Paragraph [0033] teaches a sheet-type leak sensor that is 50cm long). 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 teaching of Chapman with the length of Jang because this yields the predictable result of allowing for optimized design without sacrificing performance.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (Chapman; US Patent #6,639,517) as applied to claims 4 and 12 above, and further in view of Sundaresan et al. (Sundaresan; US PG Pub #2017/0187541).
As to claim 6, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the body is narrower than 2 cm.
In the field of electrode sensor devices, Sundaresan teaches wherein the body is narrower than 2 cm (Paragraph [0067] teaches the sensing area in the range from 1 square micrometer to 10 square centimeters). 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 teaching of Chapman with the size of Sundaresan such that the body is narrower than 2 cm because Sundaresan recognizes widths less than 2 cm and selecting a certain dimension yields the predictable result of allowing for optimized design without sacrificing performance.
As to claim 13, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein adjacent electrodes of the matrix of the electrodes are arranged approximately 1 cm apart or less.
In the field of electrode sensor devices, Sundaresan teaches wherein adjacent electrodes of the matrix of the electrodes are arranged approximately 1 cm apart or less (Paragraph [0067] teaches the spacing between electrodes in the range from 1 nanometer to 1 centimeter). 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 teaching of Chapman with the spacing of Sundaresan such that the electrodes are spaced by less than 1 cm because Sundaresan recognizes separation from 1 nanometer to 1 centimeter and selecting a certain spacing yields the predictable result of allowing for optimized design while factoring in sensitivity changes based on the spacing (Chapman; Column 4, Lines 4-14).
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (Chapman; US Patent #6,639,517) as applied to claims 7 and 18 above, and further in view of Koyama et al. (Koyama; US PG Pub #2016/0166757).
As to claim 9, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the electrical electrodes are foil pieces adhered to surfaces of the body.
In the field of liquid detection, Koyama teaches wherein the electrical electrodes are foil pieces adhered to surfaces of the body (Paragraphs [0002]-[0003] teach foil electrodes). 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 teaching of Chapman with the teaching of Koyama because substituting the foil of Koyama for the electrode material of Chapman is a simple substitution of parts that yields the predictable result of enabling current flow for liquid leakage detection.
As to claim 21, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold is tunable.
In the field of liquid detection, Koyama teaches wherein the threshold is tunable (Paragraph [0107] teaches a selectable liquid leak threshold). 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 teaching of Chapman with the teaching of Koyama because providing a selectable threshold yields the predictable result of setting conditions so that there is a greater likelihood that an alert is an intended, reliable alert.
Claims 16 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (Chapman; US Patent #6,639,517) as applied to claims 15 and 28 above, and further in view of Vainshtein (US PG Pub #2012/0247574).
As to claim 16, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 15, Chapman teaches an alarm unit receiving a signal and outputting an audio signal (Column 6, Lines 23-57), but does not explicitly teach wherein the signal output outputs an audio signal.
In the field of electronic mats, Vainshtein teaches wherein the signal output outputs an audio signal (Paragraph [0012] teaches a mat with an audible alarm that alerts of water collected on the mat; Paragraph [0028] teaches a mat that activates an audio alarm when sufficient fluid is pooled). 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 teaching of Chapman with the audio alarm of Vainshtein because alerting locally and remotely yields the predictable result of increasing the likelihood of attention drawn to the alerting.
As to claim 29, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 28, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the short-range wireless interface is a Bluetooth interface.
In the field of electronic mats, Vainshtein teaches wherein the short-range wireless interface is a Bluetooth interface (Paragraphs [0010] and [0012] teach a Bluetooth wireless connection to cause an alert of a leak). 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 teaching of Chapman with the Bluetooth communication of Vainshtein because Vainshtein recognizes the use of Bluetooth, WI-FI, or other wireless network technologies (Paragraphs [0010] and [0012]) such that substituting one for the other yields the predictable result of permitting wireless communication.
As to claim 30, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 28, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the short-range wireless interface is a Wi-Fi interface.
In the field of electronic mats, Vainshtein teaches wherein the short-range wireless interface is a Wi-Fi interface (Paragraphs [0010] and [0012] teach a WI-FI wireless connection to cause an alert of a leak). 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 teaching of Chapman with the WI-FI communication of Vainshtein because Vainshtein recognizes the use of Bluetooth, WI-FI, or other wireless network technologies (Paragraphs [0010] and [0012]) such that substituting one for the other yields the predictable result of permitting wireless communication.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (Chapman; US Patent #6,639,517) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Murphy (US PG Pub #2015/0048952).
As to claim 25, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 24, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the internal battery supply has sufficient capacity to last more than one year.
In the field of sensing devices, Murphy teaches wherein the internal battery supply has sufficient capacity to last more than one year (Paragraph [0078] teaches a battery providing power for at least 3 years of normal operation). 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 teaching of Chapman with the battery life of Murphy because extending the battery life to longer than one year yields the predictable result of not requiring a change of battery for an extended period of time for enhanced user-friendliness and reliability of operation.
As to claim 26, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 24, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the controller periodically wakes from a sleep state to interrogate the electrodes.
In the field of sensing devices, Murphy teaches wherein the controller periodically wakes from a sleep state to interrogate the electrodes (Paragraph [0051] teaches obtaining readings and placing the device into a sleep mode between readings). 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 teaching of Chapman with the sleep mode of Murphy because this significantly reduces power consumption and extends the life of the battery (Paragraph [0051]).
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman et al. (Chapman; US Patent #6,639,517) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Morris (US PG Pub #2010/0100026).
As to claim 32, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 27, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein, in use, the receiver interrogates the controller.
In the field of wetness sensors, Morris teaches wherein, in use, the receiver interrogates the controller (Paragraph [0006] teaches an interrogation unit transmitting a RF signal corresponding to the resonant frequency of a resonant circuit). 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 teaching of Chapman with the interrogation of Morris because this allows for periodic, aperiodic, user initiated, or event driven communication (Paragraph [0009]).
As to claim 33, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 32, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the receiver interrogates the controller to determine the operational status thereof.
In the field of wetness sensors, Morris teaches wherein the receiver interrogates the controller to determine the operational status thereof (Paragraph [0006] teaches determining the presence of liquid based on the response). 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 teaching of Chapman with the interrogation of Morris because this allows for periodic, aperiodic, user initiated, or event driven communication (Paragraph [0009]).
As to claim 34, depending from the apparatus as claimed in claim 32, Chapman does not explicitly teach wherein the receiver interrogates the controller to determine whether a leak has been detected.
In the field of wetness sensors, Morris teaches wherein the receiver interrogates the controller to determine whether a leak has been detected (Paragraph [0006] teaches determining the presence of liquid based on the response). 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 teaching of Chapman with the interrogation of Morris because this allows for periodic, aperiodic, user initiated, or event driven communication (Paragraph [0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, the applicant argues that “claim 1 requires a controller that not only detects a leak but also characterizes the leak as moisture or pooled water.” Therefore, the applicant concludes that claim 1 cannot be anticipated by Chapman. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 does not require a controller that characterizes the leak as moisture or pooled water. Instead, the claim states that the controller detects “a leak… wherein the leak is characterized as moisture or pooled water.” This language is different in scope than actively reciting that a controller determines a first condition as moisture and a second condition as pooled water. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 is interpreted as a controller detecting a leak, wherein the leak can be moisture or pooled water.
Based on this proper interpretation of the claim, Chapman teaches detecting the presence of an undesirable accumulation of water (Column 1, Lines 20-25) where an accumulation of water corresponds to the claimed pooled water. Thus, Chapman detects a leak where the leak is pooled water. Claim 1 remains properly rejected.
On pages 7-15, the applicant argues the rejections to all of the dependent claims rejected under 35 USC 103 because (A) Chapman does not anticipate and therefore cannot serve as a proper basis for obviousness and (B) Chapman is mischaracterized. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to argument (A), this is addressed with respect to claim 1 above. Chapman properly reads on the claimed invention and therefore can serve as a proper basis for obviousness.
With respect to argument (B), the applicant first argues the subject matter of dependent claims 14, 18-20, and 35-36 by stating that the absorbent layer in Chapman prevents differentiation by uniformly absorbing any water and presenting the same electrical signature regardless of whether the original leak was light moisture or heavy pooling. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the teaching of Chapman, the alarm is triggered once liquid dripping onto an absorbent layer extends over some point on each of two electrodes (Column 4, Line 61 – Column 5, Line 8). Therefore, the presence of moisture (minor) does not trigger an alarm and the presence of pooled water (major) does trigger the alarm. Therefore, Chapman does differentiate between the presence of moisture and pooled water. Therefore, Chapman does read on the argued subject matter.
On page 10, the applicant argues that connected mats are fundamentally different from a tear-off or cut away section. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Chapman can be interpreted such that 2 connected mats read on the claimed “mat” and disconnecting the 2 mats reads on a tear-ff or cut away section since the functionality of the mat is maintained when only 1 mat remains. Absent further argument and given the interpretation of the prior art, Chapman remains as properly rejecting the claimed subject matter.
On page 11, the applicant argues, with respect to claim 5, that Jang is not analogous art and that there is no motivation to combine prior art references. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Jang is not analogous art, 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, Jang is directed to leak sensors which is within the same field of endeavor.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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 teaching of Chapman with the length of Jang because this yields the predictable result of allowing for optimized design without sacrificing performance. Optimizing design is found within knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim 5 remains properly rejected.
On pages 12-13, the applicant argues with respect to claims 6 and 13 that Sundaresan is not analogous art, the broad range of Sundaresan provides no motivation, and there is no motivation to combine prior art references.
In response to applicant's argument that Sundaresan is not analogous art, 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, Sundaresan is directed to electrode based sensor devices which is within the same field of endeavor.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the broad range of Sundaresan does not provide motivation, the examiner recognizes that the broad range of Sundaresan meets the claimed limitation and that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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 teaching of Chapman with the teaching of Sundaresan because selecting a certain dimension yields the predictable result of allowing for optimized design without sacrificing performance. Optimizing design is found within knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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 teaching of Chapman with the teaching of Sundaresan because selecting a certain dimension yields the predictable result of allowing for optimized design without sacrificing performance. Optimizing design is found within knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claims 6 and 13 remain properly rejected.
On pages 13-15, the applicant argues with respect to claims 9 and 21 that Koyama does not suggest the claimed detection approach, Koyama’s teaching provides a different detection mechanism, and that there is no motivation to combine. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Koyama requires a hydrophilic insulation sheet and liquid permeating the insulation sheet and that Koyama does not suggest eliminating the insulation sheet or detecting water through direct electrode contact, 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). In this case, Koyama is relied upon for teaching foil electrodes and tunable thresholds, not an insulation sheet having lyophilicity, wherein the insulation sheet is preferably hydrophilic and detecting water through direct electrode contact, as argued. Therefore, the combined teachings of the references would have suggested the claimed subject matter.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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 teaching of Chapman with the teaching of Koyama because substituting the foil of Koyama for the electrode material of Chapman is a simple substitution of parts that yields the predictable result of enabling current flow for liquid leakage detection. Providing a simple substitution is found within knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 9 and 21 remain properly rejected.
Therefore, claims 1-37 remain properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ross (US PG Pub #2004/0105758) teaches activating a second sensor at a second vertical height after liquid continues to collect after a first sensor has been activated (Paragraph [0030]) such that a person is notified when a small amount of moisture or liquid is detected first (Paragraph [0022]) and a pump is activated if an additional amount of liquid collects (Paragraph [0023]) thereby distinguishing between moisture and pooled water.
Ha et al. (US PG Pub #2011/0289796) teach a water level sensing device with two electrodes (Paragraph [0066]).
McCallum et al. (US PG Pub #2014/0317954) teach a detector mat having at least one moisture sensing element including a plurality of electrodes to detect moisture and transmit a signal to a controller in response to detecting the moisture (Paragraphs [0007]-[0008]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688