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 on 06 February 2024 and 02 September 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-11 were originally filed.
Claim 3 is currently amended.
Claim 12 is newly added.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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.
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 paragraph1:
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;
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
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: “water quality analysis unit has functionality for manually analyzing” and “calibration value input unit…for calibrating” in claim 1. Similar language can be found in claim 4.
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:
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
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleischman, JP-2019531890-A (hereinafter “FLEISCHMAN”).
Re claim 1, FLEISCHMAN discloses a water quality sensor calibration system comprising:
a water quality measurement value management device [p.3];
a water quality monitoring device [p.3];
a water quality analysis unit [p.3]; and
a calibration value input unit [p.3],
wherein:
the water quality measurement value management device manages water quality measurement values [p.3],
the water quality monitoring device is installed in a water quality control room, includes a communication unit, a water quality sensor calibration processing device, and a water quality sensor, and has functionality for transmitting a water quality measurement value measured by the water quality sensor to the water quality measurement value management device [p.3];
the water quality analysis unit has functionality for manually analyzing water quality at a site where the water quality monitoring device is installed [p.3];
in a case that there is an unacceptable deviation between a manual analysis value manually analyzed by the water quality analysis unit and the water quality measurement value managed by the water quality measurement value management device [pp.3/5]:
the calibration value input unit inputs a calibration value for calibrating the water quality measurement value obtained based on the manual analysis value and transmits the calibration value to the water quality measurement value management device [pp.7-8]; and
the communication unit accesses the water quality measurement value management device and downloads the calibration value stored in a database of the water quality measurement value management device [pp.7-8];
the water quality sensor calibration processing device receives the calibration value downloaded by the communication unit, calibrates the water quality measurement value from the water quality sensor based on the calibration value, and remotely calibrates the water quality sensor based on the calibration value downloaded from the water quality measurement value management device [pp.7-8]
Re claim 2, FLEISCHMAN discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above. FLEISCHMAN further discloses, wherein the water quality sensor calibration processing device includes:
a water quality value calibration control unit having functionality for calibrating, in a case that there is a deviation between the manual analysis value manually analyzed by the water quality analysis unit and the water quality measurement value managed by the water quality measurement value management device, the water quality measurement value measured by the water quality sensor to the calibration value obtained from the manual analysis value based on the calibration value obtained based on the manual analysis value [pp.7-8]
Re claim 8, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 9. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son et al., KR-101819416-B1 (hereinafter “SON”).
Re claim 4, SON discloses a water quality management system comprising:
an automatic drainage device installed in a drainage chamber to manage a drainage operation [p.4];
a user terminal for use by a user [p.3]; and
a water quality management device for remotely managing the automatic drainage device [pp.3-4],
wherein:
the automatic drainage device, the user terminal, and the water quality management device are connected via a communication network [pp.3-4];
the water quality management device includes:
a transfer unit configured to transfer, in a case that a drainage operation control request that designates drainage control for starting or stopping a drainage operation at a particular date and time is received from the user terminal, a drainage control instruction to the automatic drainage device that requests that the drainage control be performed at the particular date and time [p.10], and
the automatic drainage device includes:
a first communication unit configured to receive communication from the water quality management device [p.10], and
a drainage management unit configured to execute, in a case that the drainage control instruction is received from the water quality management device via the first communication unit, the drainage control at the particular date and time [p.10]
Re claim 5, SON discloses the system of claim 4, as shown above. SON further discloses, a water quality monitoring device installed in a water quality control room [p.3], wherein the water quality monitoring device includes:
a water quality sensor that acquires a water quality measurement value at a site where the water quality monitoring device is installed [pp.3-4], and
a second communication unit that transmits, in a case that the water quality measurement value does not meet a predetermined water quality criterion, an abnormality notification to the water quality management device [pp.3-4];
the water quality management device transmits, using the transfer unit, in a case that the abnormality notification is received from the water quality monitoring device, a drainage execution instruction to the automatic drainage device that requests starting of a drainage operation [pp.3-4]; and
the automatic drainage device starts, in a case that the drainage execution instruction is received from the water quality management device by the first communication unit, the drainage operation [pp.3-4]
Re claim 6, SON discloses the system of claim 5, as shown above. SON further discloses, wherein
the water quality monitoring device transmits, in a case that a second water quality measurement value measured by the water quality sensor after the abnormality notification was transmitted to the water quality management device satisfies the predetermined water quality criterion, a water quality improvement notification to the water quality management device via the second communication unit that indicates that water quality has improved;
the water quality management device transmits, in a case that the water quality improvement notification is received from the water quality monitoring device, a drainage stop instruction to the automatic drainage device using the transfer unit that requests stoppage of the drainage operation; and
the automatic drainage device stops, in a case that the drainage stop instruction is received from the water quality management device by the first communication unit, the drainage operation
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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FLEISCHMAN in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Re claim 3, FLEISCHMAN discloses the system of claim 1, as shown above.
FLEISCHMAN further discloses, wherein:
the water quality sensor is any one selected from the group consisting of a residual chlorine concentration meter, a chromaticity meter, a turbidity meter, and a pH meter;
the water quality analysis unit is any one selected from the group consisting of a portable residual chlorine measurement device, a portable chromaticity measurement device, a portable turbidity measurement device, and a portable pH measurement device;
the water quality measurement value management device is any one selected from the group consisting of a cloud-side server and a personal computer;
the calibration value input unit is a terminal including a tablet or a smartphone;
the communication unit accesses the water quality measurement value management device and downloads the calibration value stored in the database; and
the water quality sensor calibration processing device is a processing device that calibrates the water quality sensor based on the calibration value
FLEISCHMAN fails to explicitly disclose the communication unit is a communication terminal that includes a magnet switch, and is configured such that when a magnet is brought close to the magnet switch after the calibration value is transmitted from the calibration value input unit to the cloud, the magnet switch activates to initiate communication
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it was old and well-known in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to configure a communication terminal with a magnet switch for activation and operation
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify FLEISCHMAN to include such a well-known magnet switch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide real-time communication with the communication terminal (see at least FLEISCHMAN [p.9]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to include a magnet switch for a communications terminal. Since both FLEISCHMAN and the Examiner’s assertion disclose features in similar embodiments, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 12, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over SON in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Re claim 7, SON discloses the system of claim 4, as shown above.
SON fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first communication unit includes a magnet switch, and is configured such that when a magnet is brought close to the magnet switch, the magnet switch activates to initiate communication, and the first communication unit accesses the water quality management device and acquires information regarding the particular date and time for performing the drainage operation
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it was old and well-known in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to configure a communication terminal with a magnet switch for activation and operation
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify SON to include such a well-known magnet switch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to control the water quality, self-diagnosis information (see at least SON [p.3]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the Examiner’s assertion merely teaches that it is well-known to include a magnet switch for a communications terminal. Since both SON and the Examiner’s assertion disclose features in similar embodiments, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FLEISCHMAN in view of SON.
Re claims 9-11, Applicant recites claim features combining elements of claims 1-3 (water quality calibration) and 4-7 (automatic drainage). Accordingly, the features of claims 9-11 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as those of claims 1-3 and 4-7.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify the water quality analysis and calibration system of FLEISCHMAN to include the automatic drainage features of SON’s water quality analysis system. One would have been motivated to do so in order to control the water quality, self-diagnosis information (see at least SON [p.3]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, the SON merely teaches that it is well-known to include to provide automatic drainage in a water quality analysis system. Since both FLEISCHMAN and SON disclose features in similar embodiments, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. 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. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 MPEP § 2181, subsection I
Prosecution Insights