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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tippelt et al. (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2024/0102670 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tippelt et al. ‘670, in view of MELIA et al (English Translated DE PG Pub No.: 112021003710 TS), hereinafter referred to as MELIA et al ‘710.
Regarding claim 21, Tippelt et al ‘670 disclose a disclose a heat pump water heater system (100), comprising: an air-to-water heat pump unit (1) including a compressor (5) that compresses and heats refrigerant to heat water, and a heat exchanger (4) that is configured to be exposed to ambient air (A) from outside of a building (B) whereby heat from the ambient air is transferred to refrigerant flowing through the heat exchanger {see Figs. 1-3: ¶¶ [0009-0010], [0045-0050], [0054] and [0057-0075]}; a hot water tank system (12) that is configured to receive and store hot water from the heat pump unit {as shown in Fig. 2: ¶ [0058]}.
However, Tippelt et al ‘670 fail to disclose the limitations a plurality of temperature sensors that are configured to measure water temperatures in the hot water tank system, and configured such that a volume of water in the hot water tank system at a temperature above or below a sensed temperature can be determined; and a controller that determines a volume of hot water in the hot water tank system above a predefined temperature based on the sensor data from the plurality of temperature sensors.
MELIA et al ‘710 teach: the concept of a plurality of temperature sensors (214) that are configured to measure water temperatures in the hot water tank system, and configured such that a volume of water in the hot water tank system at a temperature above or below a sensed temperature can be determined {as shown in Fig. 2A: page 5, ¶2, page 6, ¶1, page 7, ¶5, page 10, ¶¶4-5, page 11, ¶¶ 2-4, page 13, ¶¶2-3, page 14, ¶2, page 15, ¶¶1-3, page 16, ¶¶1-3, page 17, ¶1, page 21, ¶¶5-7, page 22, ¶6}; and a controller (212) that determines a volume of hot water in the hot water tank system above a predefined temperature based on the sensor data from the plurality of temperature sensors {as shown in Fig. 2A: Summary/Character list, pages 4-6; Overview, pages 7-8; page 11, ¶¶ 2-3; page 16, ¶¶ 3-4; and page 22, ¶6}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Tippelt et al ‘670 in view of MELIA et al ‘710 to include the use of a plurality of temperature sensors and a controller, in order to facilitate determination of an operating time of a heating unit for recharging the volume of water flowing out of the hot water storage tank [MELIA et al ‘710 – page 5, ¶3}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Tippelt et al ‘670 in view of MELIA et al ‘710 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Claims 22-26 are dependent from claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 above and therefore inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim 21.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 02/20/2026, with respect to the new claims 21-26 filed, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as detailed above.
Conclusion
3. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
03/07/2026