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 Invention I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 8/21/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/21/26.
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.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140182624 A1 to Taylor in view of US 20170234578 A1 to Sato and US 20170108242 A1 to Hamagami.
Regarding claim 1. Taylor teaches a controller for a tankless water heater (fig. 2, 208), the tankless water heater comprising (fig. 2) a fluid pathway defined by an inlet valve (240), a heat exchanger (100), and an outlet valve (232),
PNG
media_image1.png
533
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the controller comprising:
a processor; and memory having instructions stored thereon (programmable control module 208 is understood to comprise a processor and memory that execute the process of fig. 6) that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to execute a water heater descaling procedure (para. 26, “A power relay 224 coupled to the power supply 220 and the valves (connections not shown) triggered by the programmable control module 208, sends power to the valve solenoids to energize the solenoids (and thus open a normally closed valve, or close a normally open valve) during cleaning/descaling and rinsing operations.”), including by:
activating a pump to cause a descaling solution to circulate through the fluid pathway (fig. 6, step 624); and
deactivating the pump responsive to one of:
i) an amount of time that the pump is active exceeding a time limit (from fig. 6, the pump is activated during step 624 which continues until the cycle count of step 628 and 644 are reached. At this point the system returns to normal operation at step 648 in which the pump is no longer activated, see fig. 3),
ii) the flow rate exceeding a first threshold (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative), or
iii) a change in the flow rate exceeding a second threshold (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative).
PNG
media_image2.png
621
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach the tankless water heater comprising a bypass valve for selectively bypassing the heat exchanger; and
the water heater descaling procedure including:
causing the bypass valve to prevent fluid from bypassing the heat exchanger; and
monitoring a flow rate of the descaling solution through the fluid pathway.
Sato teaches a tankless water heater (fig. 1) comprising a bypass valve (44) for selectively bypassing the heat exchanger (Para. 28, “The bypass pipe 24 connects the water input pipe 20 and the heated water output pipe 22 by bypassing the heat exchanger 18. The bypass pipe 24 is provided with a bypass servo valve 44 for adjusting an opening area of the bypass pipe 24. The bypass servo valve 44 adjusts the opening area of the bypass pipe 24 to adjust bypass ratio (ratio of a flow rate of water flowing into the heated water output pipe 22 from the water input pipe 20 through the bypass pipe 24 relative to a flow rate of water flowing into the heated water output pipe 22 from the water input pipe 20 through the heat exchanger 18).”).
PNG
media_image3.png
638
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Taylor to implement a suitable bypass pipe 24 and valve 44, as taught by Sato. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of regulating the fluctuations in water supply temperature, as suggested by Sato in para. 32, “Further, when the user intermittently uses the heated water, the controller 26 adjusts the bypass ratio by the bypass servo valve 44 so that fluctuation in the heated water supply temperature can be suppressed.” With this modification, it is understood that the bypass ratio would be adjusted by closing the valve 44 during the suitable cleaning method of Taylor, this is because the fluid is intentionally sent through the heat exchanger in Taylor while not being heated, opening a bypass valve 44 defeats this purpose.
With this modification, the device of modified Taylor still fails to teach monitoring a flow rate of the descaling solution through the fluid pathway.
Hamagami teaches monitoring a flow rate of descaling solution through a fluid pathway (para. 15, “The water heating apparatus further includes a flow rate sensor for measuring an amount of the fluid supplied to the heat exchanger. The controller is configured to accumulate, from start of the cleaning mode, a time period in which a flow rate measured by the flow rate sensor is equal to or greater than a third threshold value, to obtain a cumulative time period, and end the cleaning mode when the cumulative time period is equal to or greater than a predetermined time period.”)
PNG
media_image4.png
736
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Taylor to monitor the flowrate of cleaning solution via a flow rate sensor, as taught by Hamagami. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of accurately measuring the amount of fluid supplied to the heat exchanger so that it can be determined if the cleaning was sufficient, as suggested by Hamagami in para. 54, “Flow rate determination unit 10a determines a flow rate of the fluid flowing through a pipe, based on an output from flow rate sensor 13. For example, it is determined whether the flow rate detected by flow rate sensor 13 indicates a minimum operation quantity (MOQ) or not.”
Regarding claim 2. Modified Taylor teaches the controller of claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein the instructions further cause the controller to display, via a user interface, at least one of the flow rate or a remaining time for the water heater descaling procedure.
Hamagami further teaches a user interface (fig. 1, display unit) which displays a remaining time for the water heater descaling procedure (Para. 50, “Display unit 11 is controlled by controller 10 to display information. The displayed information includes: an error indicated when occurrence of clogging with scale is detected; and information about the cleaning mode for scale. The information about the cleaning mode includes information about the time required until the cleaning mode ends.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Taylor to implement a suitable display device, as taught by Hamagami. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of displaying information to a user, as suggested by Hamagami in the portion cited above.
Regarding claim 4. Modified Taylor teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the controller to:
track an amount of time that has elapsed since the water heater descaling procedure was completed (Taylor fig. 6, step 648 Cleaning/descaling mode timer is started); and
responsive to determining that the amount of time that has elapsed since the water heater descaling procedure was completed exceeds a predetermined limit (Taylor fig. 6, step 608), reinitiate the water heater descaling procedure (Taylor fig. 6, step 616).
But fails to explicitly disclose the controller presenting a notification that prompts a user to reinitiate the water heater descaling procedure.
Hamagami further teaches the controller presenting a notification that prompts a user to reinitiate the water heater descaling procedure (para. 75, “When it is determined based on the above-described conditions that the clogging with scale occurs (YES in step S7), output controller 10g causes display unit 11 to display an error. When a user confirms an error, the user connects cleaning connector 16 so as to start cleaning. The user sets water heating apparatus 20 to be in a manner in which a cleaning liquid can be supplied (see FIG. 4).”).
PNG
media_image5.png
839
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Taylor to implement a step in which the unit displays an error when ready to be cleaned and prior to entering the cleaning mode. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing the device of Taylor to be set in a manner in which cleaning liquid can be supplied, as suggested by Hamagami in the portion cited above. While requiring less set up than the device of Hamagami, there would still need to be steps taken by a user to ensure the device of Taylor is ready for a cleaning cycle, e.g. making sure the solution tank is filled.
Regarding claim 5. Modified Taylor teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the controller to:
receive a user input to terminate the water heater descaling procedure (e.g. user powering down the device); and
deactivate the pump responsive to the user input (it is understood that the pump would be deactivated if the device is powered down) and prior to any of:
i) the amount of time that the pump is active exceeding the time limit,
ii) the flow rate exceeding the first threshold, or
iii) the change in the flow rate exceeding the second threshold (powering down the device could occur prior to any of these three conditions).
Regarding claim 6. Modified Taylor teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the flow rate is monitored using a sensor positioned along the fluid pathway (Hamagami fig. 4, flow rate sensor 13, see also Taylor fig. 1, flow sensor 160).
Regarding claim 8. Modified Taylor teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the controller to prevent a heating element or a burner of the tankless water heater from being activated during the water heater descaling procedure (it is an object of Taylor to not activate the heater during the cleaning procedure, see step 616 in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9. Modified Taylor teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the controller to receive a command to begin the water heater descaling procedure (Taylor fig. 6, step 608 being “yes” is a command to begin the water heater descaling procedure).
Regarding claim 10. Modified Taylor teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the controller to store an indication that the water heater descaling procedure has been completed (Taylor fig. 6, the Cleaning/Descaling Mode Timer from step 648 is an indication, per se, that the water heater descaling procedure has been completed).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Sato and Hamagami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to Ametek, Protecting Against Damage to Progressing Cavity Pumps, 4/31/23.
Regarding claim 3. Modified Taylor teaches the controller of claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein the instructions further cause the controller to:
detect that air is entering the fluid pathway based on the flow rate;
generate an alert indicating an abnormal condition based on air entering the fluid pathway; and
present the alert to a user via a user interface.
It is known in the art from Ametek to monitor a pump dry run condition via a flow sensor (“Monitoring the process material being pumped is a much better approach and can shut down the pump when the upstream leg becomes empty. This ensures that the pump will not be run in a dry condition. The most common methods for measuring the absence of fluid are pressure, flow, conductance, or RF admittance switches.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Taylor to use the suitable flow sensor of Hamagami to monitor for a dry run condition of the pump during the cleaning process, as suggested by Ametek. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of ensuring the pump does not run dry by shutting it down before damage occurs, as suggested by Ametek in the portion cited above.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to additionally generate and present an alert via a user interface when the error occurs, at least based on the further teachings of Hamagami para. 50. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of allowing the user to be informed of the error, see Hamagami para. 50, “Display unit 11 is controlled by controller 10 to display information. The displayed information includes: an error indicated when occurrence of clogging with scale is detected; and information about the cleaning mode for scale.” See also para. 75, in which the error message is used to initiate user action, e.g. helping to correct the error.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Sato and Hamagami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20160033171 A1 to Mase and US 11313589 B2 to Yuge.
Regarding claim 7. Modified Taylor teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein the pump is configured to circulate the descaling solution:
i) from an external reservoir (Taylor fig. 4, copied below, flow from the tank 212);
ii) through the heat exchanger (Taylor fig. 4, flow through the tankless water heater 100); and
iii) back to the external reservoir (Taylor fig. 4, flow back to the tank 212).
PNG
media_image6.png
490
701
media_image6.png
Greyscale
But fails to explicitly teach circulating the descaling solution through the inlet valve, bypass valve, and outlet valve; This is because these valves are closed and fluid at best passes around these valves, not through, as claimed.
Mase teaches an inlet and outlet valve connecting with a descaling system via a 3 way valve (fig. 3, valves 40 and 42)
PNG
media_image7.png
669
392
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Taylor to implement suitable 3 way valves, as taught by Mase. This modification would particularly replace the valves 232 and 236 into one 3 way valve and valves 244 and 240 into another 3 way valve, thereby circulating the fluid “through” the inlet and outlet valves during the cleaning process, as claimed. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of selectively isolating the cleaning circulation loop from the cold and hot water supply lines in a suitable way, as suggested by Mase in para. 33, “The water supply pipe 30 is connected to a water pipe 41 via a manual water supply switching valve 40, and the hot water supply pipe 31 is connected to a hot water supply piping 43 via a manual hot water supply switching valve 42.”
Similarly, Yuge teaches a bypass valve being a 3 way valve (col. 5 ll. 10-15, “The bypass control valve 28 is arranged at a connection 21a between the water line 20a and the bypass line 20d and is configured to adjust a ratio between a first flow rate W1 and a second flow rate W2.”).
PNG
media_image8.png
728
557
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Taylor to implement a suitable 3 way bypass valve, as taught by Yuge. With this modification, the bypass valve is along the main circulation path and would therefore have the cleaning solution flow “through” it, as claimed. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of diverting the bypass fluid in a suitable way, as suggested by Yuge in the portion cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights