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 statement (IDS) dated 10/22/2024 has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-12 are 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 8 recites, in part, “a water consumer”, “a pump”, “a valve”, and “a controller configured to perform the method of claim 1. However, claim 1, of which claim 8 depends from, already has introduced “a water consumer”, “a pump”, and “a valve”. It is unclear if the devices of the water consumer, pump, and valve that are being controlled by the method of claim 1 are the same components as those introduced in claim 8 or if these are separate, additional structures.
Claims 9-12 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 10-12, claims 8 and 10-12 as far as they are definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gray (U.S. 8,973,597).
Gray discloses a method for operating a water supply system for an aircraft, the method comprising: detecting a demand for water supply at a water consumer (col. 3, ll. 38-43, col. 5, ll. 11-31, demand by a user); starting a first operation sequence of a pump and a valve associated with the water consumer (col. 3, ll. 38-47, col. 5, ll. 11-31, with sufficient water in the auxiliary tank, the controller starts the pump, when enough pressure is built up at the shuttle valve via the pumping action, the valve is shifted so that water flow from the auxiliary tank); detecting an end of the demand for water supply at the water consumer (when water flow drops to a low level or no flow as detected by the flow sensor, see col. 3, ll. 47-54 and col. 5, ll. 27-31); and starting a second operation sequence of the pump and the valve (turning off the pump which then moves the shuttle valve back to the default position, see col. 4, ll. 47-54 and col. 5, ll. 27-31); wherein each of the first and second operation sequence includes a time delay between operation of the pump and operation of the valve (the delay from the time the pump is turned on to the time there is enough pressure built up to move the shuttle valve, see col. 3, ll. 40-47 and the delay from the time the pump is turned off to the time the shuttle valve moves back to the default position, see col. 3, ll. 47-54).
Regarding claim 3, Gray further discloses wherein the second operation sequence includes reducing operation of the pump or deactivating the pump, and closing the valve after the time delay (deactivation of the pump which then leads to the closure of the valve after pressure drops at the auxiliary inlet port of the shuttle valve, see col. 3, ll. 47-54).
Regarding claim 4, Gray further discloses wherein the first operation sequence includes opening the valve and activating the pump after the time delay, or wherein the first operation sequence includes activating the pump and opening the valve after the time delay (activating the pump and opening the valve after the time delay, see col. 3, ll. 40-47).
Regarding claim 6, Gray further discloses wherein operation of the pump includes setting a pump parameter, or setting a speed of the pump, or setting an output pressure of the pump and/or an output flow of the pump (setting a pump parameter, the parameter being the pump being on or off, see col. 3, ll. 38-54).
Regarding claim 8, Gray discloses a water supply system for an aircraft (intended use in the preamble which has not been given patentable weight), the water supply system comprising: a water consumer (the consumer that is downstream of the conduit 14 that is part of the plumbing system and leads to the device that allows for water demand from a user); a pump (7); a valve (11) associated with the water consumer; and a controller configured to perform the method of claim 1 (as described above in the rejection of claim 1, the controller coupled to the flow sensor to determine the flow through the sensor and controlling the pump which controls the valve).
Regarding claim 10, Gray further discloses wherein the pump is one or more of: a main pump supplying water from a central tank to the water consumer, an individual pump supplying water from a central tank to the water consumer, and a micropump supplying water from a water tank to the water consumer (pump 7 is interpreted to be a main pump that supplies water from a central tank 1 to the consumer).
Regarding claim 11, Gray further discloses wherein the valve is one or more of: a cross feed valve in a main water system, a shutoff valve in a main water system, an inlet buffer valve configured to fill a buffer tank, a control valve for a faucet or sink, a control valve for a galley insert, and a control valve for a toilet (a shutoff valve in a main water system, as it either shuts of water from main line 15 to allow flow from the tank 1 or allows water to flow from the main line 15 and stops flow from the tank 1).
Regarding claim 12, Gray discloses an aircraft comprising at least one water supply system of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above, Gray is interpreted to meet this claim as the recitation of “an aircraft” is an intended use in the preamble which has not been given patentable weight, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951)).
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) 9, as far as it is definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Niethammer et al. (U.S. 5,711,038).
Gray discloses the claimed invention and while Gray does infer that the consumer is a faucet or the like (see col. 1, ll. 14-16), Gray does not appear to explicitly disclose the consumer being one or more of a lavatory, a galley, a water buffer tank, a sink, and a toilet.
Niethammer teaches it was known in the art to have a gray water supply system for a toilet (col. 4, ll. 53-56).
As Gray discusses the use of the tank 1 as part of a gray water system (col. 5, ll. 47-61), and Niethammer teaches the use of gray water for a toilet, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gray such that the consumer is a toilet as taught by Niethammer as Gray is silent as to the specific consumer and having the consumer be a toilet allows for gray water to be used for the toilet which saves money as fresh water from a supply source is not being used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 7 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.
Regarding claim 2, there is no indication the time delay is set to operate the valve when the pump is operated with a reduced capacity and there is no readily identifiable motivation to operate the pump at a reduced capacity upon operation of the valve.
Regarding claim 5, as the time delays for both the first and second operations (the time delay between operation of the valve and the pump) are directly correlated to the operation of the pump which then operates the valve, there is no means to be able to modify the time delay of the first sequence to be shorter than the time delay of the second sequence.
Regarding claim 7, there is not disclosed a plurality of valves nor is there one valve of the plurality of valves that is always in an at least partially open configuration and there is not seen to be any readily apparent motivation to make such a modification in Gray.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schreiner et al. (U.S. 2022/0342431) discloses a water supply system for an aircraft with a valve opening delay.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753