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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 6-9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claims 2-5, 10-12, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 18 is objected to for a minor informality.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 18, “receive a confirmation signal from the PUD, the confirmation signal from the PUD;” appears to have a redundant repetition.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STILES (US 2023/0046254 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, STILES teaches a water management system comprising: (¶ 24: A “pool automation system” and “demand response system” is a water management system.)
a demand response controller configured to: (¶ 7-8, 24, 30: The pool automation and demand response system includes a controller 108 that receives a demand event from a source, such as an electricity provider or aggregator.)
receive a demand response signal that specifies a reduction in electrical power consumption by a water utility; (¶ 30-31, 33: A demand event is categorized into various level that specify an amount of reduction in electrical power consumption by a water utility, i.e. the various components of a pool and spa system.)
select a point of use device (PUD) to implement a reduction in water consumption responsive to the demand response signal; (¶ 31, 33-37: The automation system determines one or more “pool components” (i.e. the point of use devices) to control such that the demand response meets the required load reduction. This includes decreasing the speed of water flow of pool pumps or turning off components, such as waterfall machines, completely. Certain components are prioritized based on categorizations, such as criticality of the component and safety concerns, utilization amount, schedules, and user preferences.)
and transmit, to the PUD, a control signal that specifies a reduction in water flow controlled by the PUD. (¶ 31, 35-36, 45, 57: The selected components are controlled by the controller 108 to reduce their operation: water flow is either turned off or reduced in speed for components such as pumps and waterfall devices.)
Claim 9 is directed to a method and Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim 9 and claim 16 otherwise recite the same limitations as claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 6, STILES further teaches wherein: the demand response signal specifies a time at which the reduction in electrical power consumption is to be implemented; and the demand response controller is configured to schedule transmission of the control signal based on the time. (¶ 30, 35, 47-48, 53: A time of day or duration of the demand event is specified in the demand event signal received by the pool automation controller. Based on the time specified and other factors, such as priority of the devices or user preferences, the control of the component is scheduled either during or outside of the time specified.)
Claim 13 recites the same limitations as claim 6 and is rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, STILES further teaches wherein: the demand response signal specifies a duration of the reduction in electrical power consumption to be implemented; and the demand response controller is configured to transmit, to the PUD, a control signal that specifies a resumption of full water flow controlled by the PUD based on expiration of the duration. (¶ 30, 47-48, 64: A duration of the demand event is specified in the demand event signal received by the pool automation controller. After the duration, full water flow controlled by the component, such as a pump, is resumed. Based on certain factors, the pump is controlled to run for a longer period of time due to the reduction in flow during the duration.)
Claim 14 recites the same limitations as claim 7 and is rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 8, STILES further teaches wherein the demand response controller is configured to transmit, to the PUD, a control signal that specifies a resumption of full water flow controlled by the PUD, during a portion of the duration of the reduction in electrical power consumption, based on a previously identified requirement for full water flow during the portion of the duration. (¶ 40, 47-48, 53, 64: A user specifies times where full water flow is required. If the demand response is during these times, the system may choose not to comply based on this schedule. If the components were running at reduced operation due to the demand event, they would resume to full consumption during these times. A schedule is also reinstituted if certain obligations, such as water clarity levels, are required to be met (See Fig. 7).)
Claim 15 recites the same limitations as claim 8 and is rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
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.
Claims 2, 10, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STILES (US 2023/0046254 A1) in view of BRONIAK (US 2012/0029705 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, STILES teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 2 depends.
STILES further teaches wherein: the PUD includes a controller configured to actuate a pump responsive to the control signal, the actuation of the pump including: partially closing the pump to reduce the water flow responsive to the control signal specifying partial closure; and fully closing the pump to stop the water flow responsive to the control signal specifying full closure. (¶ 44, 57, 64: A pump for a pool automation system is either operated at reduced speed (i.e. partially closed) or turned off (i.e. fully closed to stop water flow) in response to the control signal from the controller for the automation system that received the demand response event.)
STILES teaches water features such as waterfalls (¶ 24), that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know would include a controllable valve, but STILES does not explicitly teach wherein: the PUD includes a controller configured to actuate a valve responsive to the control signal, the actuation of the valve including: partially closing the valve to reduce the water flow responsive to the control signal specifying partial closure; and fully closing the valve to stop the water flow responsive to the control signal specifying full closure.
However, BRONIAK, which is similarly directed to energy management for water utility devices, teaches wherein: the PUD includes a controller configured to actuate a valve responsive to the control signal, the actuation of the valve including: partially closing the valve to reduce the water flow responsive to the control signal specifying partial closure; and fully closing the valve to stop the water flow responsive to the control signal specifying full closure. (¶ 30-34: A controller controls a valve to switch states between fully opened, fully closed, or partially closed/opened to control an amount of wattage used by a pool pump in response to a peak demand signal.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pool automation and electrical demand response system taught by STILES by including controllable valves for controlling the water flow to the devices of the pool system as taught by BRONIAK. Since the references are similarly directed to reducing power consumption of devices having electrical components that are connected to a water utility, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Use of these valves for the pumps and water features taught by STILES would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to remotely control water flow. BRONIAK further teaches “these valves can be modulated in unison to provide various percentages of filtration by lessening the total flow through the filtration medium if desired. In turn, the current draw of the pool pump motor is reduced, while still allowing the maintenance of water circulation (albeit without filtering capability) during a peak demand response event. The pressure drop through the filtration media may be significant, which greatly reduces the head requirements and subsequently the power consumption of the pool pump motor.”
Claim 10 recites the same limitations as claim 6 and is rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 17, STILES teaches all the limitations of claim 16, on which claim 17 depends.
STILES further teaches configure the control signal to cause the PUD to partially close a pump to reduce the water flow; and configure the control signal to cause the PUD to fully close the pump to stop the water flow. (¶ 44, 57, 64: A pump for a pool automation system is either operated at reduced speed (i.e. partially closed) or turned off (i.e. fully closed to stop water flow) in response to the control signal from the controller for the automation system that received the demand response event.)
STILES teaches water features such as waterfalls (¶ 24), that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know would include a controllable valve, but STILES does not explicitly teach: configure the control signal to cause the PUD to partially close a valve to reduce the water flow; and configure the control signal to cause the PUD to fully close the valve to stop the water flow.
However, BRONIAK, which is similarly directed to energy management for water utility devices, teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the processor to: configure the control signal to cause the PUD to partially close a valve to reduce the water flow; and configure the control signal to cause the PUD to fully close the valve to stop the water flow. (¶ 30-34: A controller controls a valve to switch states between fully opened, fully closed, or partially closed/opened to control an amount of wattage used by a pool pump in response to a peak demand signal.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pool automation and electrical demand response system taught by STILES by including controllable valves for controlling the water flow to the devices of the pool system as taught by BRONIAK. Since the references are similarly directed to reducing power consumption of devices having electrical components that are connected to a water utility, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Use of these valves for the pumps and water features taught by STILES would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to remotely control water flow. BRONIAK further teaches “these valves can be modulated in unison to provide various percentages of filtration by lessening the total flow through the filtration medium if desired. In turn, the current draw of the pool pump motor is reduced, while still allowing the maintenance of water circulation (albeit without filtering capability) during a peak demand response event. The pressure drop through the filtration media may be significant, which greatly reduces the head requirements and subsequently the power consumption of the pool pump motor.”
Regarding Claim 19, STILES in view of BRONIAK further teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the processor to: determine, based on the demand response signal, a time at which the reduction in electrical power consumption is to be implemented; and schedule transmission of the control signal based on the time. (STILES, ¶ 30, 35, 47-48, 53: A time of day or duration of the demand event is specified in the demand event signal received by the pool automation controller. Based on the time specified and other factors, such as priority of the devices or user preferences, the control of the component is scheduled either during or outside of the time specified.)
Regarding Claim 20, STILES in view of BRONIAK further teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the processor to: determine, based on the demand response signal, a duration of the reduction in electrical power consumption; and transmit, to the PUD, a control signal that specifies a resumption of full water flow controlled by the PUD based on expiration of the duration. (STILES, ¶ 30, 47-48, 64: A duration of the demand event is specified in the demand event signal received by the pool automation controller. After the duration, full water flow controlled by the component, such as a pump, is resumed. Based on certain factors, the pump is controlled to run for a longer period of time due to the reduction in flow during the duration.)
Regarding Claim 21, STILES in view of BRONIAK further teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the processor to transmit, to the PUD, a control signal that specifies a resumption of full water flow controlled by the PUD, during a portion of the duration of the reduction in electrical power consumption based on a previously identified requirement for full water flow during the portion of the duration. (STILES, ¶ 40, 47-48, 53, 64: A user specifies times where full water flow is required. If the demand response is during these times, the system may choose not to comply based on this schedule. If the components were running at reduced operation due to the demand event, they would resume to full consumption during these times. A schedule is also reinstituted if certain obligations, such as water clarity levels, are required to be met (See Fig. 7).)
Claims 3-5, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STILES (US 2023/0046254 A1) in view of BRONIAK (US 2012/0029705 A1) and further in view of ALCALA (US 2019/0249897 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, STILES in view of BRONIAK teaches all the limitations of claim 2, on which claim 3 depends.
STILES in view of BRONIAK does not teach wherein the PUD is configured to transmit a confirmation signal to the demand response controller responsive to the actuation of the valve, the confirmation signal specifying whether the valve is partially closed of fully closed.
However, ALCALA, which is similarly directed to monitoring and controlling the flow rate of a fluid through a valve, teaches wherein the PUD is configured to transmit a confirmation signal to the demand response controller responsive to the actuation of the valve, the confirmation signal specifying whether the valve is partially closed of fully closed. (¶ 114, 122, 125, 129, Fig. 9: A valve actuator transmits position feedback to a controller responsive to actuation of the valve, which specifies the valve position. This is therefore a confirmation signal that specifies whether the valve is partially or fully closed. See ¶ 111: a flow rate sensor also acts as a fault detector, i.e. a confirmation of whether a valve was operated correctly.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pool automation and demand response system taught by STILES in view of BRONIAK by including feedback from the valve in the automation system that confirms the position of the valve as taught by ALCALA. Since the references are similarly directed to dynamically controlling components that control the flow of fluid in a system, the combination would have yielded predictable results. ALCALA (¶ 57) teaches including these confirmation signals and subsequent control would improve the overall performance of the control system, which “overcomes the issue of having flow rate readings of zero when there is clearly a flow going through the valve”.
Claim 11 recites the same limitations as claim 3 and is rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4, STILES in view of BRONIAK teaches all the limitations of claim 2, on which claim 4 depends.
STILES in view of BRONIAK does not teach wherein the PUD is configured to: receive a water flow measurement from a water meter coupled to the PUD, or from the water utility, responsive to the actuation of the valve; and transmit a confirmation signal to the demand response controller responsive to the actuation of the valve, the confirmation signal including the water flow measurement.
However, ALCALA, which is similarly directed to monitoring and controlling the flow rate of a fluid through a valve, teaches wherein the PUD is configured to: receive a water flow measurement from a water meter coupled to the PUD, or from the water utility, responsive to the actuation of the valve; and transmit a confirmation signal to the demand response controller responsive to the actuation of the valve, the confirmation signal including the water flow measurement. (¶ 111, 114-115, 140-141, Fig. 9: A flow rate sensor is associated with a valve actuator, which transmits the flow rate data to a controller responsive to actuation of the valve. The signal communicated from the flow rate sensor 912 via the communication interface 908 to the controller 914 is therefore a confirmation signal that includes the flow rate data. See ¶ 111: the flow rate sensor also acts as a fault detector, i.e. a confirmation of whether the valve was operated correctly.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pool automation and demand response system taught by STILES in view of BRONIAK by including feedback from the valve in the automation system that confirms the flow rate of the liquid moving through he valve as taught by ALCALA. Since the references are similarly directed to dynamically controlling components that control the flow of fluid in a system, the combination would have yielded predictable results. ALCALA (¶ 57) teaches including these confirmation signals and subsequent control would improve the overall performance of the control system, which “overcomes the issue of having flow rate readings of zero when there is clearly a flow going through the valve”.
Claim 12 recites the same limitations as claim 4 and is rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 5, STILES in view of BRONIAK teaches all the limitations of claim 2, on which claim 5 depends.
STILES in view of BRONIAK does not teach wherein actuation of the valve includes: dynamically controlling the valve responsive to the control signal and responsive to water flow measurement data received from a water meter coupled to the PUD, from the water utility, or from a third party system that provides water use measurements.
However, ALCALA, which is similarly directed to monitoring and controlling the flow rate of a fluid through a valve, teaches wherein actuation of the valve includes: dynamically controlling the valve responsive to the control signal (¶ 114, 127, 141, 150: A valve is dynamically controlled responsive to a control signal indicating a target flow rate and feedback signals from the valve actuator and flow rate sensor.)
and responsive to water flow measurement data received from a water meter coupled to the PUD, from the water utility, or from a third party system that provides water use measurements. (¶ 111, 114-115, 140-141, Fig. 9: A flow rate sensor is associated with a valve actuator, which transmits the flow rate data to a controller responsive to actuation of the valve. The measured flow rate data is used as feedback to dynamically control the valve.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pool automation and demand response system taught by STILES in view of BRONIAK by dynamically controlling the valve responsive to feedback from the valve that includes water flow measurement data as taught by ALCALA. Since the references are similarly directed to dynamically controlling components that control the flow of fluid in a system, the combination would have yielded predictable results. ALCALA (¶ 57) teaches that such dynamic control would improve the overall performance of the control system, which “overcomes the issue of having flow rate readings of zero when there is clearly a flow going through the valve”.
Regarding Claim 18, STILES in view of BRONIAK teaches all the limitations of claim 17, on which claim 18 depends.
STILES in view of BRONIAK does not teach wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the processor to: receive a confirmation signal from the PUD, the confirmation signal from the PUD; determine based on the confirmation signal that the valve is closed as specified in the control signal; and determine based on the confirmation signal, a flow rate of water through the valve.
However, ALCALA, which is similarly directed to monitoring and controlling the flow rate of a fluid through a valve, teaches wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the processor to: receive a confirmation signal from the PUD, the confirmation signal from the PUD; determine based on the confirmation signal that the valve is closed as specified in the control signal; (¶ 114, 122, 125, 129, Fig. 9: A valve actuator transmits position feedback to a controller responsive to actuation of the valve, which specifies the valve position. This is therefore a confirmation signal that specifies whether the valve is partially or fully closed.)
and determine based on the confirmation signal, a flow rate of water through the valve. (¶ 111, 114-115, 140-141, Fig. 9: A flow rate sensor is associated with a valve actuator, which transmits the flow rate data to a controller responsive to actuation of the valve. The signal communicated from the flow rate sensor 912 via the communication interface 908 to the controller 914 is therefore a confirmation signal that includes the flow rate data. See ¶ 111: the flow rate sensor also acts as a fault detector, i.e. a confirmation of whether the valve was operated correctly.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pool automation and demand response system taught by STILES in view of BRONIAK by including feedback from the valve in the automation system that confirms the position of the valve and the flow rate of the liquid moving through the valve as taught by ALCALA. Since the references are similarly directed to dynamically controlling components that control the flow of fluid in a system, the combination would have yielded predictable results. ALCALA (¶ 57) teaches including these confirmation signals and subsequent control would improve the overall performance of the control system, which “overcomes the issue of having flow rate readings of zero when there is clearly a flow going through the valve”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Valluri (US 2012/0053737 A1) teaches another embodiment of a home energy management system incorporating a pool pump similar to Broniak.
Potucek (US 20180174207 A1) teaches remote operation of pool and spa equipment, including fault detection and meeting utility company standards. (¶ 150, 153)
Konowalczyk (US 2024/0093910 A1) teaches methods for reducing energy and water usage, including automating control of water outlets. (¶ 111)
Eyring (US 10,534,378 B1) teaches monitoring of water usage by an irrigation system based on a flow rate meter and timestamps of the valve positions. (Col. 2:48-58, 8:26-35, 10:40-50, 19:10-18)
Noboa (US 2021/0199330 A1) teaches calibration of flow sensors and opening and closing valves fully or partially while recording flow measurements. (¶ 115)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights