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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/13/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement.
In particular, the attached Foreign Reference to CN 209279407 U is not listed on the 3/13/24 IDS. The reference has been considered by the Examiner.
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) 1-4,6,8,10-13,15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180024574 A1 to Goodjohn in view of JP 2005214452 A to Suzuki.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1. Goodjohn teaches a method of operating a water heater appliance, the water heater appliance comprising (fig. 2)
a tank (tank 101),
a cold water inlet conduit extending into the tank (cold water conduit 104),
a heating element within the tank (heating elements 103),
a hot water conduit extending from the tank to a mixing valve (hot water conduit 106 extending to mixing valve 120), and
a mixed water conduit downstream of the mixing valve (mixed water conduit 122),
PNG
media_image1.png
519
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the method comprising:
activating the heating element to heat a volume of water (para. 16, “heating elements 103 (FIG. 2) are positioned within casing 102 for heating water therein.”);
providing water from the volume of heated water through the mixed water conduit (para. 19, “Mixing valve 120 is in fluid communication with cold water conduit 104, hot water conduit 106, and mixed water conduit 122. As discussed in greater detail below, mixing valve 120 is configured for selectively directing water from cold water conduit 104 and hot water conduit 106 into mixed water conduit 122 in order to regulate a temperature of water within mixed water conduit 122.”).
Furthermore, Goodjohn teaches signaling when the amount of hot water drawn in a predetermined time interval exceeds a set threshold (para. 43 and fig. 3 step 240)
But fails to teach measuring a temperature gradient within the tank of the water heater appliance;
estimating a time remaining for providing water from the volume of heated water based on the measured temperature gradient; and
signaling the time remaining in response to reaching a threshold amount of time.
Suzuki teaches measuring a temperature gradient within the tank of a water heater appliance (p. 7 first para., “Furthermore, a plurality of thermistors 143 are arranged on the outer wall surface of the hot water storage tank 110 at predetermined intervals in the vertical direction so that temperature information at each water level in the hot water storage tank 110 is output to the control device 150 described later.”);
Estimating a time remaining for providing water from the volume of heater water based on the measured temperature gradient (p. 7 last para., “Further, the amount of remaining hot water in the hot water storage tank 110 of the previous day is calculated from the temperature information at each water level from the thermistor 143, and the amount obtained by subtracting the remaining amount of hot water from the required amount of heat for hot water supply is defined as the amount of heating heat.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
732
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Goodjohn, which signals when excessive hot water is used based on measuring a flow rate, to additionally or alternatively signal based on an amount of remaining hot water, measured by a suitable sensor structure as taught by Suzuki. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing for control decisions to be made based on an amount of hot water, as suggested and described on p. 8.
With this modification, Goodjohn would signal the time remaining (as done in Goodjohn para. 43) in response to reaching a threshold amount of time (Goodjohn signals based on excessive water draw, but would signal based on an amount of hot water when modified by Suzuki as described above).
Regarding claim 2. Modified Goodjohn teaches the method of claim 1, wherein signaling the remaining time comprises pulsing a specified volume of water from the cold water inlet conduit through the mixed water conduit (para. 43, “If the amount of hot water drawn within a predetermined time interval exceeds some threshold set by the user or the manufacturer, the discharge of further hot water may be reduced or terminated by mixing valve 120. According to an exemplary embodiment, mixing valve 120 may be regulated such that the flow hot water is either completely stopped (i.e., mixing valve 120 is placed in a zero hot flow position) or at least substantially stopped. As used herein, “substantially stopped” is used to mean that the mixing valve 120 is regulated such that the flow of hot water is restricted to within ten percent of the zero hot flow position. In this manner, only cold water, or at least substantially colder water, is delivered to water consuming device 150 through mixed water conduit 122. The user of water consuming device 150 will feel that the water has become cold, which will serve as an indication that the user has exceeded the preset threshold of hot water usage.”).
Regarding claim 3. Modified Goodjohn teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the specified volume of water from the cold water inlet conduit mixes with the volume of heated water, thereby cooling a temperature of the heated water by a specified amount (para. 43, cited above).
Regarding claim 4. Modified Goodjohn teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the specified amount of temperature comprises between one and twenty degrees Fahrenheit (further in para. 43, “Although the exemplary embodiment describes providing an indication of excessive hot water usage with a cold burst of water, it should be appreciated that the indication could be any change in water temperature that is detectable by the user.” Where degrees between 1 and 20 are detectable by the user).
Regarding claim 6. Modified Goodjohn teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the threshold value of the time remaining comprises between thirty minutes and five minutes (Goodjohn is directed at encouraging reduced consumption so the tank does not run out of hot water, paras. 4-5, when modified by Suzuki to monitor the amount of hot water remaining in the tank, the threshold amount of time when the device signals that excessive hot water is being used would correspond to a certain duration of hot water usage).
With regards to the limitation of “the threshold value of time remaining comprises between thirty minutes and five minutes”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a specific threshold value of time has predictable and expected results. For example, this time could be optimized by increasing to allow more water for other plumbing fixtures and increased efficiency, Goodjohn para. 4, and could be decreased to allow for more capacity before signaling, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a threshold value of time is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the time is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the threshold value of time to between five and thirty minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Regarding claim 8. Modified Goodjohn teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, when the heating element is heating the volume of water, the water is heated to a tank temperature (para. 16, “A tank 101 (FIG. 2) and heating elements 103 (FIG. 2) are positioned within casing 102 for heating water therein”), and wherein the heated water is provided through the mixed water conduit at an output temperature (para. 19, “As discussed in greater detail below, mixing valve 120 is configured for selectively directing water from cold water conduit 104 and hot water conduit 106 into mixed water conduit 122 in order to regulate a temperature of water within mixed water conduit 122.”).
Regarding claim 10. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Where Goodjohn teaches a controller in signal communication with the heating element (controller 136, connected to heating elements 103 as seen in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 12. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 13. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 17. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 9, 14, 16, and 18 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 5. Goodjohn in view of Suzuki, applied to claim 3, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein, when pulsing the specified volume of water from the cold water inlet conduit through the mixed water conduit, the method comprises performing a number of pulses in response to the threshold amount of time.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Goodjohn teaches only a singular pulse of cold water. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a number of pulses, as claimed, since this would add additional complexity to the system.
Regarding claim 14. The claim would be allowable for the same reason as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7. Goodjohn in view of Suzuki, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein signaling the remaining time comprises playing an audible tone from an audio actuator disposed in the tank.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Goodjohn signals by temporarily sending cold water from the mixing valve. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an audio actuator disposed in the tank, as claimed, since the prior art at best teaches an actuator disposed on the water line, per se, see DE 102015117999 A1, cited in Applicant’s 3/13/24 IDS. In addition, most audio actuators, e.g. alarms and/or control panels, would be disposed outside of the tank, per se.
Regarding claim 16. The claim would be allowable for the same reason as claim 7.
Regarding claim 9. Goodjohn in view of Suzuki, applied to claim 8, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein estimating the time remaining is based on an average hot water temperature of the water within the chamber of the tank, the method further comprising comparing the average hot water temperature of the water within the chamber of the tank to the output temperature.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Suzuki teaches determining the remaining volume of hot water by using a plurality of temperature sensors at varying tank heights. Additionally, it is known in the art to measure an average temperature of a tank, see WO 8805160 A1 to Collins fig. 1. However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system to compare an average temperature to the output temperature, as claimed, since it is desired to know the precise level of hot water in the tank, Suzuki p. 8.
Regarding claim 18. The claim would be allowable for the same reason as claim 9.
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