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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“communication module” in claim 1. (rejected under 112a and b)
“heating module” in claim 2, 15, 16.
“user device” in claim 8, 15, 18, 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding the limitation of “communication module”, the lack of a recited structure within the specification raises the issue of lack of written description since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain nor discern what exactly is conveyed by the communication module, since as broadly recited, it may encompass any embodiment capable of performing said function. As currently recited, it is unclear as to what exactly is necessitated by the claim in order to cause infringement, and applicant's disclosure has not provided enough information so as to reasonably convey a particular structure therefor.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim limitation “communication module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 and 16 recites the limitation "a temperature of the hose bibb". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear if applicant is referring to the previous mentioned “a temperature of a house bibb”.
Claim 1-3, 15-16 recites the limitation "when the temperature of the hose bibb". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear to which of the previous mentioned “temperature of the hose bibb” is applicant referring (please refer to the above rejection).
Claim 1 and 16 recites the limitation "a signal". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear if applicant is referring to the previous mentioned “a signal”. For examination purposes the signal will be interpret as a different signal.
Claim 5, 15 recites the limitation "wherein a length of the predetermined interval is based upon a temperature of the hose bibb". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear if applicant is referring to the previous mentioned “a temperature of a house bibb” or “a temperature of the house bibb”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " wherein the length of the predetermined interval is based upon a temperature of the environment outside of the hose bibb". This limitation is unclear and confusing because it us unclear if the limitation of “wherein a length of the predetermined interval is based upon a temperature of the hose bibb” is being neglected or ignored. For examination purposes it will be interpret as “wherein the length of the predetermined interval is further based upon a temperature of the environment outside of the hose bibb”
Claim 13 recites the limitation "wherein the temperature sensor is disposed on an outside portion of the cover". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear how can a temperature sensor outside of the cover (where the hose bibb is located inside) measure “a temperature of the house bibb”. For examination purposes it will be interpret in a similar fashion to claim 6, e.g. “further comprising a second temperature sensor disposed on an outside portion of the cover”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the temperature sensor is disposed on an inside portion of the cover; the temperature sensor is disposed on an outside portion of the cover". This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear how can the temperature sensor both be inside and outside the cover. Further, is also unclear how can a temperature sensor outside of the cover (where the hose bibb is located inside) measure “a temperature of the house bibb”. For examination purposes it will be interpret in a similar fashion to claim 6, e.g. “further comprising a second temperature sensor disposed on an outside portion of the cover”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a first predetermined temperature" in lns 18 and 21. This limitation is unclear and confusing because is not clear if applicant is referring to the previous mentioned “a first predetermined temperature” or even if they referring to each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of product/apparatus/machine. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “activate … transmit the signal to the network when the temperature of the hose bibb is below a first predetermined temperature”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate whether when the temperature is below the target. This is a simple observation and comparison that can be conducted in the mind.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “temperature sensor”, “hose bibb”, “communication module”, “controller”, and “network” which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment/generic computing component (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite “detect a temperature” “receive a signal” “transmit a signal and “transmit the signal” which is merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Examiner notes that these elements held to be merely insignificant extra-solution will be addressed below in Step 2B as further being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 1 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The claim do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than field of use/technological environment /generic component as well as insignificant extra-solution data gathering/transmission which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering is also WURC, see at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network wherein receiving information as claimed is receiving data over a network (see analysis in Step 2A Prong 2 above). The “transmit a signal to a network” “receive a signal” “transmit the signal” as in claim 1 being data transmission. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claim 1 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regard to claims 4-14, they recite additional elements “a predetermined interval” “a length of the predetermined interval” “an external temperature sensor” “user device” “an application” “command” “cover” but amount to no more than field of use/technological environment /generic component. Further, claims 8-10 recite “received by a user device” “an application configured to communicate … through the network” “wherein the application is configured to operate the controller through the network” “send a command” “” which are merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering/transmission activity very similar to that of claim 1 (see analysis of the data gathering/transmission above in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis of claim 1). For the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4-14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 4-14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kindermann (US Pat No. 6,536,485), hereinafter referred to as Kindermann, in view of Bailey et al (US 20200325660), hereinafter referred to as Bailey.
Re claim 1, Kindermann teaches a system for monitoring a temperature of a hose bibb, comprising:
a temperature sensor (e.g. C4-lns 1-5, “11 comprises the electrochemical converter and preferably also a temperature sensor or thermostat”; the examiner notes that “or” doesn’t exclude one over the other for example see claim 8) configured to detect a temperature of the hose bibb (see Fig 4);
a controller (12) in electronic communication with the temperature sensor e.g. C4-lns 1-5, “comprises the electrochemical converter and preferably also a temperature sensor or thermostat”; the examiner notes that “or” doesn’t exclude one over the other for example see claim 8),
Kindermann does not teach the limitation of a communication module configured to transmit a signal to a network; wherein the controller is in electronic communication with the communication module; wherein the controller configured to activate the communication module to transmit the signal to the network when the temperature of the hose bibb is below a first predetermined temperature.
However, Bailey teaches a frozen pipe alert system (which is related to the problem the applicant is trying to solve [i.e. freeze prevention of the house bibb]. See In re Bigio, 381F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) comprising a communication module (126) configured to transmit a signal to a network (128); wherein a controller (102) is in electronic communication with the communication module (see ¶ 62 and Fig 1); wherein the controller is configured to activate the communication module to transmit the signal to the network when a temperature (step 310 ambient temperature) associated with the pipe (related to Kindermann house bibb) is below a first predetermined temperature (see Step 310 to 316).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kindermann and integrated a communication module configured to transmit a signal to a network; wherein the controller is in electronic communication with the communication module; wherein the controller configured to activate the communication module to transmit the signal to the network when the temperature of the hose bibb is below a first predetermined temperature, as suggested by Bailey, in order to alert the user of a freezing possibility (see Bailey ¶ 62).
Re claims 2 and 16, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 1. Kindermann further teaches the limitation of further comprising a heating module (e.g. C4-lns 1-5, “11 comprises the electrochemical converter”; e.g. C3-lns 46-48, “other electrochemical converters, e.g. Peltier elements, may be applied as heating elements.”) configured to heat the hose bibb (see Fig 4), wherein the controller is configured to activate the heating module to heat the hose bibb when the temperature of the hose bibb is below the first predetermined temperature (e.g. C3-lns 10-20, “If temperature falls below this predetermined lowest value, the four heat resistors 2 are switched on. They heat up and due to their direct contact with the pipe extension 6 or a pipeline provide heat thereto. When the upper predetermined value is exceeded due to this heating up, the heat resistors are switched off and cool down until the temperature again falls below the predetermined lowest value. In the present embodiment the hysteresis between the lowest and upper temperature value is about 4° C”).
Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 3 and 17, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 2 and method of claim 16. Kindermann further teaches the limitation of wherein the controller is configured to deactivate the heating module when the temperature of the hose bibb is above a second predetermined temperature, the second predetermined temperature being greater than the first predetermined temperature (e.g. C3-lns 10-20, “If temperature falls below this predetermined lowest value, the four heat resistors 2 are switched on. They heat up and due to their direct contact with the pipe extension 6 or a pipeline provide heat thereto. When the upper predetermined value is exceeded due to this heating up, the heat resistors are switched off and cool down until the temperature again falls below the predetermined lowest value. In the present embodiment the hysteresis between the lowest and upper temperature value is about 4° C”). Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 4, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 1. Bailey further teaches the limitation of wherein a temperature sensor (e.g. 106a) is configured to detect the temperature of a pipe (related to Kindermann house bibb) at a predetermined interval (e.g. ¶ 133-136, “the first temperature sensor 106 a monitors the temperature of the pipe 122” … “The processor 104 of the device 102 may perform this analysis. The plurality of measurements may be chosen, for example, to span a predetermined period of time during which the device will detect whether a water draw has occurred”). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kindermann, as modified, and configured the temperature sensor to detect the temperature of the house bibb at a predetermined interval, as suggested by Bailey, in order to further determine a freezing possibility (see Bailey abstract).
Re claim 5, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 4. Bailey further teaches the limitation of wherein a length of the predetermined interval is based upon a temperature of the hose bibb (e.g. ¶ 36, “the predetermined first and/or second periods of time may be tuneable or adjustable based on properties of the monitored piping temperature”; the examiner notes that the pipe and house bibb are related).
Re claim 6, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 5. Bailey further teaches the limitation of further comprising an external temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of an environment outside of the hose bibb (e.g. C4-lns 20-25, “the temperature adjustment as well as the temperature regulation may also take place via an outer temperature sensor”).
Re claim 7, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 5. Bailey further teaches the limitation of wherein the length of the predetermined interval is based upon a temperature of the environment outside of the hose bibb (e.g. ¶ 36, “the time periods may be the period of time which immediately precedes the point in time at which the alert is transmitted to the remote device.”; the examiner notes that the alert transmission is based in the exterior temperature [see 306]; and since the predetermined interval is based on the transmission then it is indirectly based on the exterior temperature).
Re claim 8-9 and 18, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 5 and method of claim 16. Bailey further teaches the limitation of wherein the signal transmitted to the network is configured to be received by a user device, the user device including an application configured to communicate with the communication module through the network; wherein the application is configured to operate the controller through the network (e.g. ¶ 62-63, “The remote device 126 may be a remote server which can forward on the message to a relevant person, or a mobile device of a user of the building. Alternatively, the remote device 126 may be an internet router within the house capable of forwarding on the message further to the cloud 128 for further forwarding onto the relevant recipient of the alert” … “a user may use a mobile device 130 to input details of the geographical location of the building, or the location of the device within the building”). Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 10 and 19, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 9 and method of claim 18. Bailey further teaches the limitation of wherein the application is operable to send a command to the controller through the network (e.g. ¶ 62-63, “The remote device 126 may be a remote server which can forward on the message to a relevant person, or a mobile device of a user of the building. Alternatively, the remote device 126 may be an internet router within the house capable of forwarding on the message further to the cloud 128 for further forwarding onto the relevant recipient of the alert” … “a user may use a mobile device 130 to input details of the geographical location of the building, or the location of the device within the building”). Kindermann, as modified, does not explicitly teach the limitation of the command including a member selected from a group consisting of set a temperature alert level, operate a heating module, set a temperature detection interval, and combinations thereof. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that sending a “set a temperature detection interval” command through the network to a controller, for the purpose of allowing user to further tune and control the system, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient (see e.g. US 11608618, C23-lns 45-50). Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kindermann, as modified, and integrated the command including set a temperature detection interval, for the purpose of allowing user to further tune and control the system. Moreover, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by and/or obvious over the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Re claim 20, Kindermann, as modified teaches the method of claim 18. Bailey further teaches the limitation of further comprising accessing, at the user device, a historical temperature log for the hose bibb as detected by the temperature sensor (e.g. ¶ 133, “The data collected from this monitoring is sent to the detection device (or stored in the memory 108 thereof) and may be stored in the memory 108 of the device 102. Alternatively, it will be appreciated that the temperature data may be stored remotely, e.g. in a cloud 128 or server 118 communicatively coupled to the detector device 102”).
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kindermann, in view of Bailey, and in further view of Kowalski (US 20200378513), hereinafter referred to as Kowalski.
Re claim 11, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 1. Kindermann, as modified does not teach the limitation of further including a cover configured to surround the hose bibb.
However, Kowalski teaches the limitation of faucet freeze prevention system (see Fig 1-8) comprising a cover (100) configured to surround a hose bibb (102 “faucet”) (see e.g. Fig 1-3).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kindermann, as modified, and integrated a cover configured to surround the hose bibb, as suggested by Bailey, in order to insulate and protect the house bibb (see Kowalski abstract).
Re claim 12, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 11. Kindermann, as modified, teaches the limitation of wherein the temperature sensor is disposed on an inside portion of the cover (inherent in view of the modification since 11 is attached to the house bibb in Kindermann it would make it also inside the cover).
Re claim 13, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 11. Regarding the limitation of “wherein the temperature sensor is disposed on an outside portion of the cover” (see above interpretation under 112b).
Kindermann calls for an outer temperature sensor (e.g. C4-lns 20-25, “the temperature adjustment as well as the temperature regulation may also take place via an outer temperature sensor”). Further, Kowalski teaches the limitation of a temperature sensor (e.g. 130; ¶ 36, “the control device 130 is a thermostatic control element and a temperature sensor”) disposed on an outside portion of the cover (e.g. ¶ 36, “the control device or thermostatic control 130 is mounted in a protective box on the exterior surface of the plastic shell 136 around the 1.0″ thick insulating foam box”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kindermann, as modified, and integrated a temperature sensor is disposed on an outside portion of the cover, as suggested by Kowalski, in order to have the appropriate control of the system using outside temperature as suggested by Kindermann and Kowalski.
Re claim 14, Kindermann, as modified teaches the system of claim 11. Kowalski teaches the limitation of wherein the cover is configured to surround an entirety of the hose bibb (see Fig 1-4).
Re claim 15, see above rejections of claims 2-14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 11/12/2025
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763