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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20100198417 A1 to Deivasigamani
Regarding claim 1. Deivasigamani teaches a system (fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of water heaters disposed in a cascaded arrangement (heaters A, B, and C); and
a plurality of isolation valves configured to regulate a flow rate through individual water heaters of the plurality of water heaters (valve 10 of heaters A, B, and C);
PNG
media_image1.png
530
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
memory that stores computer-executable instructions (see explanation below citing para. 91); and
one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions (controller 12, which has a memory and processors to execute instructions, see for example para. 91 in which describes a memory location and activating valves) to:
determine that a first number of isolation valves of the plurality of isolation valves are open (fig. 3, step 38 results in a predetermined number of isolation valves of the plurality being at least partially open, used to prepare for the detection of a relatively small flow, see paras. 87-91);
PNG
media_image2.png
454
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receive, from one or more sensors, first data indicating a first flow rate through at least one water heater of the plurality of water heaters at a first time (fig. 2, the system demand is determined, para. 74, “Upon detecting a system demand, each controller 12 executes a series of steps to determine the amount of heating load it needs to provide to achieve both maximum overall efficiency and optimal usage distribution.” Where the system demand is a detected flow rate, per se, see para. 67, “Flow rates Q1, Q2 or Q3 are sized based on the heating load assigned to water heaters 2, 4, 6 by their respective controllers 12. The method by which each water heater is assigned a heating load is the subject of the present invention. The heating load assigned to each heater directly corresponds to the flow allowed to flow through each heater.”);
receive, from the one or more sensors, second data indicating a second flow rate through the at least one water heater at a second time (the system demand is understood to be a dynamic parameter which is subject to change over time, e.g. hot water use increases or decreases; therefore, the flow sensors would measure additional system demands at various times);
determine that a difference between the first flow rate and the second flow rate is equal to or greater than a threshold amount (para. 75 states, “In Step 20, the number of participating water heaters required to meet the system demand 15 detected in step 16 is determined. The number of participating water heaters is obtained by dividing the system demand 15 by the minimum output of each water heater” Therefore, the difference in system demand between two points in time could exceed a threshold amount in which water heaters are adjusted to participate or not participate to meet the system demand); and
automatically cause an isolation valve of the plurality of isolation valves to open or close (participation of the water heater is done by opening or closing the valve, see para. 75, “In such a case where there is at least one water heater that is not required to be turned on, it becomes a "reserve water heater."”).
PNG
media_image3.png
573
505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Deivasigamani teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of isolation valves comprises a first isolation valve and a second isolation valve (valve 10 of heater A and B, for example), and wherein the plurality of water heaters comprises:
a first water heater coupled to the first isolation valve (heater A), wherein the first isolation valve is configured to regulate a first flow rate through the first water heater (“flow limiting valve 10”, para. 64); and
a second water heater coupled to the second isolation valve (heater B), wherein the second isolation valve is configured to regulate a second flow rate through the second water heater (“flow limiting valve 10”, para. 64),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the difference indicates that the flow rate has increased by the threshold amount (fig. 2, the system controllers determine the system demand, which may increase by a threshold amount in which an additional water heater needs to participate, para. 75), and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the second isolation valve to open, such that a portion of water flow from the first water heater is diverted to the second water heater (in the case where heater B is a “reserve water heater”, para. 75, an increase in demand would result in the valve 10 of heater B to open, thereby sending a portion of water through heater B).
Regarding claim 3. Deivasigamani teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of isolation valves comprises a first isolation valve and a second isolation valve (valve 10 of heater A and B, for example), and wherein the plurality of water heaters comprises:
a first water heater coupled to the first isolation valve (heater A), wherein the first isolation valve is configured to regulate a first flow rate through the first water heater (“flow limiting valve 10”, para. 64); and
a second water heater coupled to the second isolation valve (heater B), wherein the second isolation valve is configured to regulate a second flow rate through the second water heater (“flow limiting valve 10”, para. 64),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine that the difference indicates that the flow rate or the second water heater has decreased by the threshold amount (fig. 2, the system controllers determine the system demand, which may decrease by a threshold amount in which a participating water heater no longer needs to participate, para. 75), and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the second isolation valve to close, such that water flow is prevented through the second water heater (for example, a system demand may decrease and only require heater A to participate instead of heaters A and B to both participate, in which case the valve 10 of heater B would be closed).
Regarding claim 4. Deivasigamani teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of: a flow sensor (para. 11, “The method takes advantage of a flow limiting valve, a flow sensor, a value corresponding to a predetermined potential system demand and a value corresponding to the maximum output of a water heater in the network.”), an inlet temperature sensor, and an outlet temperature sensor (the inlet and outlet temperatures of the system are known, see TI and TO in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 10. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 11. 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 1, where Deivasigamani’s controller reads on the claimed “non-transitory computer readable medium including computer-executable instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations of:”
Regarding claim 16. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
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) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deivasigamani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2005098644 A to Kuwabara.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Kuwabara.
Regarding claim 6. Deivasigamani teaches the system of claim 1, wherein automatically causing the isolation valve to open or close further comprises actuating the isolation valve (the system is described as having flow limiting valves connected to a controller for adjusting to a desired valve setting, para. 64 and fig. 1).
But fails to explicitly teach actuating a motor of the isolation valve.
Kuwabara teaches actuating a motor of a valve (fig. 1, water flow adjustment valve 12, where p. 5 para. 6 describes, “Here, the structure of the flow rate adjusting valve will be briefly described. Each of the can flow rate adjusting valve 12 and the bypass flow rate adjusting valve 13 includes a pulse motor (stepping motor) (not shown) as its driving means.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
454
889
media_image4.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 implement a suitable pulse or stepping motor to control the valves 10, as taught by Kuwabara. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing for the valves to be controlled by the controller in a predictable way, as suggested by Kuwabara in p. 5 para. 6, in addition to allowing for the reference position initialization process of p. 3 Tech Solution to occur as detailed in Kuwabara.
Regarding claim 13. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 20. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7. Deivasigamani, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention.
Deivasigamani teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:
receive, at a first time, a first inlet temperature and a first outlet temperature associated with a first water heater operating at a first firing rate (para. 73, delta T is determined by the inlet and outlet temperatures for a specific heater, see equation copied below);
determine a first temperature difference between the first inlet temperature and the first outlet temperature (delta T, mentioned above);
receive, at a second time, a second inlet temperature and a second outlet temperature associated with the first water heater operating at the first firing rate (it is understood that the parameters are measured over time, see equation below and para. 73);
determine a second temperature difference between the second inlet temperature and the second outlet temperature (as noted above, delta T would be measured at a second time);
PNG
media_image5.png
155
597
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to: … determine that a difference between the second temperature difference and the first temperature difference is greater than a threshold value; and cause an alert to be generated.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, the temperature difference delta T of Deivasigamani is used to accurately record the remaining life of individual water heaters, so that the water heater with the longest remaining life can be used more often. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alert due to a difference between delta T’s being greater than a threshold value, as claimed, since this could indicate normal operation, e.g. fluctuating water inlet temperatures with constant temperature output.
Furthermore, US 10883729 B2 to Hallit teaches providing an alert when a temperature difference exceeds a threshold value for a given flow rate, col. 20 ll. 10-15, “If the controller detects an actual DT on the opposite side of line 604 from line 602 at a given coolant flow rate, the controller outputs a signal to user interface 726 (FIG. 7), or to another warning device (for example an LED disposed on the boiler or other heat exchanger outer housing expected to be within the operator's view), causing the user interface or other device to display a warning to the operator.”
The teachings of Hallit would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention because Hallit is directed towards monitoring the actual DT value, not the difference in DT values over time, as claimed.
PNG
media_image6.png
559
793
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5. The claim is allowable for the same reasons as claim 7, above. Where Deivasigamani additionally fails to teach “determine that sediment or debris is present in the first water heater; and automatically cause a first isolation valve associated with the first water heater to open, such that water flows through the first water heater.”
Further in Hallit, col. 20 ll. 20-25, “The [increased DT] may also arise from sediment buildup within the coolant flow path through the heat exchanger that reaches a level sufficient to significantly restrict coolant flow.” As noted above with reference to claim 7, Hallit is determining that sediment buildup is present based on the actual DT value, not the change in DT values over time.
Regarding claim 12. The claim is allowable for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14. The claim is allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 19. The claim is allowable for the same reasons as claim 5.
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