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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-5, 13-26 are pending. Claims 3-5 are amended to depend from claim 13.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “through second refrigerant coil” should be changed to --through the second refrigerant coil--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20160097546) in view of Bradenbaugh (US 6553947) and Cromer (US 4598694).
Regarding claim 13,
Referring to Fig. 2, Tsai teaches a water heating system 100, comprising: a hot water storage tank 112 comprising: a first tank portion 154 having a cylindrical outer wall; a second tank portion 156 having a cylindrical outer wall, the second tank portion being arranged below the first tank portion, a central axis of the second tank portion being aligned with a central axis of the first tank portion (not labeled); and a connecting pipe 104; a first refrigerant coil 124 wrapped around the cylindrical outer wall of the first tank portion; and a second refrigerant coil 126 wrapped around the cylindrical outer wall of the second tank portion, wherein the water heating system is configured to selectively operate in at least a first mode and a second mode (e.g. depending on the mode of valve 158), water contained within both the first tank portion and the second tank portion being heated by refrigerant passing through the first refrigerant coil and the second refrigerant coil in the first mode (e.g. when valve 158 is fully open), and water contained within exactly one of the first tank portion and the second tank portion being heated by refrigerant passing through the first refrigerant coil or the second refrigerant coil in the second mode (e.g. when valve 158 is partially open to the first or second coils).
Tsai does not teach a layer arranged between the first tank portion and the second tank portion, and the connecting pipe 104 extending through the thermal insulation layer along the central axes of the first and second tank portions to fluidly connect the first and second tank portions.
Referring to Fig. 2, Bradenbaugh, directed to a storage type water heater, teaches a layer 127 arranged between a first tank portion and a second tank portion, and a connecting pipe 112 extending through the along the central axes of the first and second tank portions to fluidly connect the first and second tank portions.
Bradenbaugh teaches that said layer 127 prevents the up flow of relatively fast moving streams of cooler water without substantially hindering the general upward flow of water (see col 5, lines 23-42).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tsai by Bradenbaugh with the motivation of preventing the up flow of relatively fast moving streams of cooler water without substantially hindering the general upward flow of water.
Tsai as modified above does not that said layer 127 is a thermal insulation layer.
Cromer, directed to a water heater, teaches that layer 25 is a thermal insulation layer (see claim 4).
Since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tsai as modified above by Cromer and arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide more stratification of the first and second tank portions.
Regarding claim 14,
Tsai teaches wherein the refrigerant flows first through the first refrigerant coil and second through the second refrigerant coil in both the first mode and the second.
Regarding claim 16,
Tsai teaches wherein water contained within the first tank portion is heated by refrigerant passing through the first refrigerant coil in the second mode, the water heating system being further configured to operate in a third mode, water contained within the second tank portion being heated by refrigerant passing through the second refrigerant coil in the third mode and water contained within the first tank portion not being heated in the third mode (e.g. when valve 158 is opened only to the second refrigerant coil).
Regarding claim 17,
Tsai teaches wherein refrigerant does not flow through the first refrigerant coil in the third mode.
Regarding claim 19,
Tsai as modified above teaches wherein the hot water storage tank further comprises an inlet dip tube 114 extending through the connecting pipe into an internal volume of the second tank portion to deliver water into the second tank portion (see Tsai, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20,
Tsai teaches wherein the cylindrical outer wall of the first tank portion has a first inner diameter, the cylindrical outer wall of the second tank portion has a second inner diameter, and the connecting pipe has a third inner diameter, but does not necessarily teach wherein both the first and the second inner diameters being at least five times the third inner diameter.
However, it has been held that claims directed to (the size of) a specific element were held unpatentable over prior art elements because limitations relating to the size of the elements were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Similarly, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). Here, the only difference between the prior art of Tsai and the claim is a recitation of relative dimensions of the diameters, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device of Tsai, and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device of Tsai.
Regarding claim 3,
Tsai as modified above teaches wherein the inlet dip tube and the connecting pipe together define an annular cross-section flow path between the first and second cylindrical tank portions (see Bradenbaugh Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4,
Tsai does not teach a heat trap arranged within the inlet dip tube.
Bradenbaugh teaches a heat trap (e.g. a flow regulator) 428 arranged within an inlet dip tube (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Tsai by Bradenbaugh with the motivation of limiting the flow of water surges through the inlet dip tube.
Regarding claim 5,
Tsai as modified above does not teach wherein the heat trap is located along a portion of the inlet dip tube that extends through the connecting pipe.
It is noted that it has been held that claims which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of a particular element were unpatentable because shifting the position of the particular element would not have modified the operation of the device. It has been further held that particular placement of an element was an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C). Here, shifting the position of the heat trap would not have modified the operation of the device. It is further held that the particular placement of the heat trap is an obvious matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15, 18, 21-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Tsai teaches that water contained with the second tank portion is heated, not cooled, by refrigerant passing through the second refrigerant coil. .
Tsai does not teach wherein the water heating system is configured to heat water contained within the first tank portion to a first setpoint temperature in the first mode and to heat water contained within the second tank portion to a second setpoint temperature lower than the first setpoint temperature in the third mode.
Tsai in view of Bradenbaugh teaches whwerein the first tank portion is capped by a first domed head (see Bradenbaugh Fig. 2) but does not teach that said first tank portion is capped by a second domed head at a second end of the cylindrical outer wall of the first tank portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steffes teaches a first and second refrigerant coil with switching valve. Currey teaches a dip tube with a heat trap.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 PM.
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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763