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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
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 claiming 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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitations that a diameter of the at least one absorption arm is between 0.1 inches to 0.2 inches and the thickness of the absorption arm is between 0.001 inches and 0.1 inches. It is not clear as to how the thickness and diameter would be different measurements and how they would each comprise the ranges claimed which do not overlap, since seemingly diameter and thickness would be the same. Paragraph 0005 of the specification indicates that the thickness of a wall of the absorption arm may be 0.001 to 0.1 inches which may be what the limitation is referring to, however no such wall has been previously disclosed in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-11, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte US 2020/0003432 and Turner US 2008/0211680.
Regarding claim 1, Nolte teaches as seen in fig 5A-5C, a liquid detection device for an appliance comprising a base (drain pan 502) comprising a drain (discharge port 506), wherein the base is positioned below the appliance (water heater 501) and configured to collect and direct liquid from the appliance towards the drain, and a liquid sensor 508 positioned on the base along a path away from the appliance and therefore away from condensation regions of the appliance, which is configured to detect liquid and generate a signal in response thereto (paragraph 0049). Nolte does not explicitly teach the details of the sensor including the absorption arm and specifics thereof.
Turner teaches a liquid detection device which can detect a leak in a household setting and comprises an absorption arm 18 extending along a length between a proximal end and distal end of the absorption arm, with the proximal end attached to and extending from the liquid sensor (fig. 1). Turner is further configured to wick liquid towards the sensing arm along the length of the absorption arm (paragraph 0026) and the liquid sensor is configured to sense liquid that has been wicked along at least a portion of the length of the at least one absorption arm to the proximal end of the at least one absorption arm and responsively generate a signal (via audio transducer 50) indicative of a detection of liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Turner with those of Nolte in order to provide a small, reliable sensor which does not require a battery to detect a liquid leak.
Regarding claim 2, Nolte discloses as seen in fig. 5C, the sensing element as disposed proximal to the drain but in combination with Turner does not explicitly teach the absorption arm as more proximal than the sensor to the drain. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have arranged the absorption arm of Turner at the location where the liquid is most likely to be present during a leak such as at the drain 506 itself and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 4, since the leaking fluid would flow to the discharge port, the path would at least partially surround the drain as claimed as it leads to the drain.
Regarding claim 6, the appliance of Nolte is a water heater device and therefore the sensor would operate within at least 30 degrees or higher since it senses liquid water.
Regarding claim 9, Nolte teaches as seen in fig 5A-5C, a liquid detection device for an appliance comprising a first portion (drain pan 502) comprising a channel (discharge port 506), wherein the first portion is positioned beneath the appliance (water heater 501) and configured to collect and direct liquid from the appliance towards the channel, and a liquid sensor 508 positioned on the first portion along a path away from the appliance and therefore away from condensation regions of the appliance, and is configured to detect liquid and generate a signal in response thereto (paragraph 0049). Nolte does not explicitly teach the details of the sensor including the absorption arm and specifics thereof.
Turner teaches a liquid detection device which can detect a leak in a household and comprises an absorption arm 18 extending along a length between a proximal end and distal end of the absorption arm, with the proximal end attached to and extending from the liquid sensor (fig. 1). Turner is further configured to wick liquid towards the sensing arm along the length of the absorption arm (paragraph 0026) and the liquid sensor is configured to sense liquid that has been wicked along at least a portion of the length of the at least one absorption arm to the proximal end of the at least one absorption arm and responsively generate a signal (via audio transducer 50) indicative of a detection of liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Turner with those of Nolte in order to provide a small, reliable sensor which does not require a battery to detect a liquid leak.
Regarding claim 10, Nolte discloses as seen in fig. 5C, the sensing element as disposed proximal to the channel but in combination with Turner does not explicitly teach the absorption arm as more proximal than the sensor to the drain. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have arranged the absorption arm of Turner at the location where the liquid is most likely to be present during a leak such as at the drain 506 itself and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 11, since the leaking fluid would flow to the channel, the path would at least partially surround the channel as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed to the condensation regions of the appliance and a pipe associated with the appliance. As written, these limitations are part of the appliance and not the liquid detection device and therefore do not affect the device or further limit its structural features. As such, the device of Nolte and Turner would still read on the claim in its entirety when placed under the appliance in the manner described.
Regarding claim 15, Nolte teaches as seen in fig 5A-5C, a liquid detection device for an appliance comprising a first portion (drain pan 502) comprising a channel (discharge port 506), wherein the first portion is configured to collect and direct liquid from the appliance towards the channel, and a liquid sensor 508 positioned on the first portion along a path away from the appliance and therefore away from condensation regions of the appliance, and is configured to detect liquid and generate a signal in response thereto (paragraph 0049). Nolte does not explicitly teach the details of the sensor including the absorption arm and the specifics thereof.
Turner teaches a liquid detection device which can detect a leak in a household and comprises an absorption arm 18 extending along a length between a proximal end and distal end of the absorption arm, with the proximal end attached to and extending from the liquid sensor (fig. 1). Turner is further configured to wick liquid towards the sensing arm along the length of the absorption arm (paragraph 0026) and the liquid sensor is configured to sense liquid that has been wicked along at least a portion of the length of the at least one absorption arm to the proximal end of the at least one absorption arm and responsively generate a signal (via audio transducer 50) indicative of a detection of liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Turner with those of Nolte in order to provide a small, reliable sensor which does not require a battery to detect a liquid leak.
Regarding claim 16, Nolte discloses as seen in fig. 5C, the sensing element as disposed proximal to the channel but in combination with Turner does not explicitly teach the absorption arm as more proximal than the sensor to the drain. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have arranged the absorption arm of Turner at the location where the liquid is most likely to be present during a leak such as at the drain 506 itself and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 17, since the leaking fluid would flow to the channel, the path would at least partially surround the channel as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to the condensation regions of the appliance and a pipe associated with the appliance. As written, these limitations are part of the appliance and not the liquid detection device and therefore do not affect the device or further limit its structural features. As such, the device of Nolte and Turner would still read on the claim in its entirety when placed under the appliance in the manner described.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte and Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cavalhiero US 2019/0094097.
Regarding claim 8, Nolte and Turner disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the materials of the absorption arm as claimed. Cavalhiero discloses a liquid sensor device for use with an appliance such as a water heater in which a sensor body is connected to an absorbent arm 58 for wicking and detecting a leak. Paragraph 0004 and 0032 of Cavalhiero disclose the wicking maternal as being nylon or wool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Cavalhiero with those of Nolte and Turner in order to provide a similar wicking material formed of nylon for example which would not absorb the liquid which would delay detection time.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte and Turner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yadvish US 9,916,748.
Regarding claim 3, Nolte and Turner teach the claimed invention but do not explicitly disclose the absorption arm as being secured to the base using a magnetic clip or adhesive. Turner does however teach using the absorption arm to attach the sensor to an area of interest such as a pipe (paragraph 0028). Yadvish discloses a leak sensor for detecting a leakage in a water tank in which a sensor 102 may comprise magnetic or adhesive mounting elements (column 4, lines 43-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Yadvish with those of Nolte and Turner to provide a magnetic or adhesive mounting for the sensor and absorption arm to maintain its location in a desired area during use.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte and Turner as applied to claim 1, 5 and 15 respectively above, and further in view of Berlovan Jr. et al. US 2021/0063268.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Nolte and Turner teach the claimed liquid detection device with the exception of the absorption arm comprising two absorption arms attached to the liquid sensor. Berlovan teaches a leak sensor comprising multiple arms (probes, fig. 7) which extend across an area to be monitored for leakage. Each of the arms is attached to a leak sensor 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Berlovan with those of Nolte and Turner in order to provide multiple sensing segments or arms to the sensor which could monitor different locations simultaneously to detect leakage quicker when it occurs.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte and Turner.
Regarding claim 7, Nolte and Turner disclose the claimed invention except for the specific size of the absorption arm and its diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to chosen the diameter of the arm to be any desired size which would allow for its placement in a desired area to detect leakage and to allow for wicking of the leak to the sensor in a timely manner, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte and Turner as applied to claims 12 above, and further in view of Berlovan Jr.
Regarding claims 13, Nolte and Turner disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the two paths located away from the condensation regions of the appliance as claimed. Berlovan discloses a sensor with multiple sensing elements and therefore each of the sensing elements when combined as above would be within a path or two paths as claimed.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nolte and Turner as applied to claims 15 above, and further in view of Berlovan Jr.
Regarding claim 19, Nolte and Turner disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the two paths located away from the condensation regions of the appliance as claimed. Berlovan teaches a leak sensor comprising multiple arms (probes, fig. 7) which extend across an area to be monitored for leakage. Each of the arms is attached to a leak sensor 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Berlovan with those of Nolte and Turner in order to provide multiple sensing segments or arms to the sensor which could monitor different locations simultaneously to detect leakage quicker when it occurs. In combination, each of the sensing arms would be within a sensing path away from the condensation regions of the appliance as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights