DETAILED ACTION
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 1-17 are pending:
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected.
Claims 8 and 11-17 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 11-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/02/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202210605775 filed on 05/30/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claimi ng the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “permeation state” in claims 5-6 is used by the claim to mean a state opposite or different than the leakage state, while the accepted meaning is “Permeation is the process where a fluid (liquid, gas, or vapor) penetrates and spreads through a material, often passing directly through it” such as through a membrane or a filter. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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.
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.
Mao (CN 208747697)
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (CN 208747697) in view of Baarman (US 2004/0050790).
Regarding claim 1, Mao teaches a water leakage control method for a water softening device, comprising:
determining that a target flow line is in a water leakage state based on a water-using parameter of the water softening device (a sensor 4 on the soft water outlet 5, purified water 6 and washing water 7 pipeline, see pgs. 3-4; when a component or pipeline leaks water, the total water flow rate through an external inlet end 1 to enter, and water treatment through the soft water 17, see pg. 5); and
controlling a water inlet valve of the water softening device to be closed (a leakage-proof electric stop valve 12 on the external end 1 of the pipeline, the anti-leakage electric disconnecting valve of water outlet of the ultra-filtration unit 2 is connected with the water inlet, an electric control device 3 is connected with the leakage-proof circuit is connected electric stop valve 12, see pg. 4)…
wherein the target flow line is a flow line located at a back end of the water inlet valve of the water softening device (see Fig. 7 wherein sensors 4 downstream of the leakage-proof electric proof stop valve 12).
Mao does not teach the step of prompting that the target flow line is in the water leakage state.
In a related field of endeavor, Baarman teaches an automatic shut-off for water treatment system (see ABS) comprising the step of prompting that the target flow line is in the water leakage state (the system indicates to a user that a downstream plumbing system failure has occurred and, optionally, closes the control valve to prevent further water damage, see ¶12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mao by incorporating the step of prompting that the target flow line is in the water leakage state as disclosed by Baarman because it allows a user or the system to respond to the leakage for corrective action such as shutting off a valve to prevent further damage (Baarman, see ¶12).
Regarding claim 2, Mao and Baarman teach the water leakage control method of claim 1.
Mao does not teach that the determining that the target flow line is in the water leakage state based on the water-using parameter of the water softening device comprises: determining that single water consumption exceeds a preset flow threshold based on the water-using parameter of the water softening device, and determining that the target flow line is in the water leakage state.
Baarman further teaches determining that single water consumption exceeds a preset flow threshold based on the water-using parameter of a water treatment device (the processor is programmed to allow a maximum single flow volume of three gallons, see ¶46; “the single flow volume” corresponds to the single water consumption), and determining that the target flow line is in the water leakage state (if the sensor detects an abnormally high flow, e.g., the type of high flow indicative of a downstream leak, see ¶10).
Regarding claims 2-4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the leakage state determination step of Mao to include water consumption exceeds a preset flow threshold based on the water-using parameter, a duration of single water consumption exceeds a preset time threshold based on the water-using parameter and water consumption generated in the target flow line during a preset time duration based on the water-using parameter of the water softening device as disclosed by Baarman because it provides known control parameters for operating the water treatment method and system to run safter and reliably (Baarman, see ¶14 and ¶45-47).
Regarding claim 3, Mao and Baarman teach the water leakage control method of claim 1.
Mao does not teach that the determining that the target flow line is in the water leakage state based on the water-using parameter of the water softening device comprises: determining that a duration of single water consumption exceeds a preset time threshold based on the water-using parameter of the water softening device, and determining that the target flow line is in the water leakage state.
Baarman further teaches determining that a duration of single water consumption exceeds a preset time threshold based on the water-using parameter of a water treatment device (“maximum single flow volume…the processor opens the inflow control valve 16 a predetermined amount to permit a predefined amount of water to enter the water treatment system 10 during a predetermined time interval to test the system 10”, see ¶47; “single flow volume” corresponds to single water consumption), and determining that the target flow line is in the water leakage state (if the sensor detects an abnormally high flow, e.g., the type of high flow indicative of a downstream leak, see ¶10).
Regarding claim 4, Mao and Baarman teach the water leakage control method of claim 1.
Mao does not teach wherein the determining that the target flow line is in the water leakage state based on the water-using parameter of the water softening device comprises:
Baarman further teaches determining that water consumption is generated in the target flow line during a preset time duration based on the water-using parameter of a water treatment device (“maximum single flow volume…the processor opens the inflow control valve 16 a predetermined amount to permit a predefined amount of water to enter the water treatment system 10 during a predetermined time interval to test the system 10”, see ¶47; “single flow volume” corresponds to single water consumption, see ¶47), and determining that the target flow line is in the water leakage state (if the sensor detects an abnormally high flow, e.g., the type of high flow indicative of a downstream leak, see ¶10).
Regarding claim 9, Mao and Baarman teach an electronic device, comprising:
The combination of Mao and Baarman teach the water softening device of claim 1.
Mao does not teach a processor; and a memory storing a computer program that is executable by the processor, wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform the water leakage control method for the water softening device.
Baarman further teaches a processor (processor 18); and a memory storing a computer program that is executable by the processor, wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to perform the water leakage control method for a water treatment device (sensor 14 with stored or calculated flow rates, see ¶30; the processor 18 includes stored, pre-set or calculated flowing or static back pressures that are specific to a normally operating non-leaking plumbing system 42, see ¶37; there is inherently a memory/storage device executable by the processor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mao by the processor and memory as disclosed by Baarman because it provides the benefit of analysis and implementation of control operations (Baarman, see ¶23).
Regarding claim 10, Mao and Baarman teach a non-transient computer-readable storage medium.
The combination of Mao and Baarman teach the water softening device of claim 1.
Mao does not teach storing a computer program, and the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the water leakage control method for the water softening device in claim 1.
Baarman teaches storing a computer program, and the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the water leakage control method for a water treatment device (sensor 14 with stored or calculated flow rates, see ¶30; the processor 18 includes stored, pre-set or calculated flowing or static back pressures that are specific to a normally operating non-leaking plumbing system 42, see ¶37; a maximum single flow volume is programmed into the processor 18; instructing the user to prevent flow of water out from the plumbing system, see claim 26). The system of Baarman comprises process control logic, stored thresholds, recorded values and executable control operations which are all software-based processor control systems therefore includes a machine-readable storage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mao by the computer program as disclosed by Baarman because it enables automative control of a water treatment plant (Baarman, see ABS) and improves the efficiency of the operating system with less human error.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (CN 208747697) in view of Baarman (US 2004/0050790) and further in view of Chen (CN 110822163).
Regarding claim 5, Mao and Baarman teach the water leakage control method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach controlling the water inlet valve of the water softening device to be closed in response to a permeation monitoring trigger instruction; and determining that a pressure change of the target flow line exceeds a preset pressure change threshold during a preset duration, determining that the target flow line is in a permeation state, and prompting that the target flow line is in the permeation state.
In a related field of endeavor, Chen teaches a leakage protector (see ABS) comprising the step of controlling the water inlet valve of the water softening device to be closed in response to a permeation monitoring trigger instruction (at the time the valve is closed and the water outlet end of the faucet is closed, if there is a situation of small-flow leakage, even if the flow rate detection module does not detect, see pg. 2); and determining that a pressure change of the target flow line exceeds a preset pressure change threshold during a preset duration, determining that the target flow line is in a permeation state, and prompting that the target flow line is in the permeation state (continuously monitoring the pressure sensing module 400 in the first detection control line 100 the pressure of the liquid so as to judge whether there is small-flow leakage. the control module 500 is mainly used for receiving ultrasonic flow detection module 200 and transmitted by the pressure sensing module 400 information and opening and closing of the control valve module 300, see pg. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mao by incorporating the step of controlling the water inlet valve of the water softening device to be closed in response to a permeation monitoring trigger instruction and determining that a pressure change of the target flow line exceeds a preset pressure change threshold during a preset duration, determining that the target flow line is in a permeation state, and prompting that the target flow line is in the permeation state as disclosed by Chen because it prevents the continuing leakage enlarged damage and plays the role of a protection (Chen, see pg. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Mao and Baarman teach the water leakage control method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein after the controlling the water inlet valve of the water softening device to be closed, and prompting that the target flow line is in the water leakage state, the water leakage control method further comprises: controlling the water inlet valve of the water softening device to be opened in response to a removal instruction of a hidden danger of water leakage.
In a related field of endeavor, Chen (CN 110822163 A) teaches a leakage protector (see ABS) comprising the step of controlling the water inlet valve of the water softening device to be opened in response to a removal instruction of a hidden danger of water leakage (factors will cause leakage of water pipe, more serious even water pipe burst, see pg. 2; continuously monitoring the pressure sensing module 400 in the first detection control line 100 the pressure of the liquid so as to judge whether there is small-flow leakage. the control module 500 is mainly used for receiving ultrasonic flow detection module 200 and transmitted by the pressure sensing module 400 information and opening and closing of the control valve module 300, see pg. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mao by incorporating the step of controlling the water inlet valve of the water softening device to be opened in response to a removal instruction of a hidden danger of water leakage as disclosed by Chen because it prevents the continuing leakage enlarged damage and plays the role of a protection (Chen, see pg. 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (CN 208747697) in view of Baarman (US 2004/0050790) in view of Chen (CN 110822163) and further in view of Pan (CN 101221084).
Regarding claim 6, Mao, Baarman and Chen teach the water leakage control method of claim 5.
The combination does not teach the prompting that the target flow line is in the water leakage state comprises at least one of: prompting that the target flow line is in the water leakage state based on a buzzer; prompting that the target flow line is in the water leakage state based on an indicator light; and transmitting information indicating that the target flow line is in the water leakage state to a target terminal; and, prompting that the target flow line is in the permeation state comprises at least one of: prompting that the target flow line is in the permeation state based on a buzzer; prompting that the target flow line is in the permeation state based on an indicator light; and transmitting information indicating that the target flow line is in the permeation state to a target terminal.
In a related field of endeavor, Pan teaches a stopping and leak hunting mechanism for vacuum system of a steam turbine (see ABS) comprising the prompting that the target flow line is in the water leakage state comprises at least one of: the step of prompting that the target flow line is in the water leakage state based on a buzzer (said abnormal condition display or indication device is the sound-light alarm, see claim 4) and prompting that the target flow line is in the permeation state comprises at least one of: prompting that the target flow line is in the permeation state based on an indicator light (wherein said abnormal condition display or indication device is the fluid column indication device, see claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mao by incorporating the step of prompting an abnormal condition by buzzer and light indicator as disclosed by Pan because it offers a simple and cost-effective means to alert a user with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights