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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein one of the water circuit systems is connected to a first end device, and the other water circuit system is connected to a second end device, wherein the first end device and the second end device are different, and a branch connector of the three-way valve is communicated with the other hot-water pipeline, a heat pump system, comprising a heat pump host, a first end device, a second end device, and the multi-system water heater module according to claim 1, wherein one water circuit system in the multi-system water heater module is communicated between the heat pump host and the first end device, and the other water circuit system in the multi-system water heater module is communicated between the heat pump host and the second end device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“a position limitation structure” in claim 13.
“a heat pump host” in claim 16.
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 13 and 16 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 claim 13, “wherein a positioning seat is fixedly arranged in the box body, and pipeline sections of the cold-water pipelines and the hot-water pipelines close to the first side wall are both detachably connected to the positioning seat by position limitation structures”. The term “structure” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which a positioning seat is fixedly arranged in the box body, and pipeline sections of the cold-water pipelines and the hot-water pipelines close to the first side wall are both detachably connected to the positioning seat by position limitation structures. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of a positioning seat is fixedly arranged in the box body, and pipeline sections of the cold-water pipelines and the hot-water pipelines close to the first side wall are both detachably connected to the positioning seat by position limitation structures. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Regarding claim 16, “a heat pump system, comprising a heat pump host”. The term “host” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which a heat pump system comprises a heat pump host. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of comprising a heat pump host. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
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 13 and 16 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 limitation “a position limitation structure and a heat pump host” 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.
The specification fails discloses the corresponding structure that achieves the claimed
function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing. 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 16 recites the limitation "a first/second devices" in lines 1 and 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 11 and 18 recite the phrase “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite. This language is indefinite because it is not clear what is being claimed and what the scope is.
No person of the ordinary skill in the art would know what “and/or” means with reasonable
certainty. Therefore, the scope is unclear and for purposes of examination, the limitations that
follow “and/or” will be considered in the alternative.
Claim 16 recites “a heat pump system, comprising a heat pump host, a first end device, a second end device, and the multi-system water heater module according to claim 1, wherein one water circuit system in the multi-system water heater module is communicated between the heat pump host and the first end device, and the other water circuit system in the multi-system water heater module is communicated between the heat pump host and the second end device”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner what explicitly is being claimed and how it fits into the claimed invention, as the heat pump host and first/second devices are not illustrated. Clarity is advised.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boros et al (US 20210318027 A1, hereinafter Boros).
Regarding claim 1, Boros teaches a multi-system water heater module (on-demand heat pump water heater 100), comprising a box body (low fluid capacity heating chamber 101) and at least two independently operating water circuit systems (via inlet 102, outlet 104 and heat pump circuit 120 comprising condenser 122, figure 1) arranged in the box body (figure 1), wherein one of the water circuit systems is connected to a first end device (expansion valve 124), and the other water circuit system is connected to a second end device (such as a bathroom sink in an users home, paragraph 0040), wherein the first end device (expansion valve 124) and the second end device (such as a bathroom sink in an users home, paragraph 0040) are different.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Boros teaches wherein the water circuit system comprises cold-water pipelines (fluid inlet 102) and hot-water pipelines (fluid outlet 104) arranged in the box body (as shown on figure 1), and end parts of the hot-water pipelines and the cold-water pipelines both pass through a side wall of the box body (as shown on figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Boros teaches a heat pump system (heat pump 120), comprising a heat pump host (condenser 122), a first end device (expansion valve 124), a second end device (such as a bathroom sink in an users home, paragraph 0040), and the multi-system water heater module (on-demand heat pump water heater 100) according to claim 1, wherein one water circuit system (via inlet 102, outlet 104, figure 1) in the multi-system water heater module (on-demand heat pump water heater 100) is communicated between the heat pump host (condenser 122) and the first end device (expansion valve 124), and the other water circuit system (heat pump circuit 120 comprising condenser 122, figure 1) in the multi-system water heater module (on-demand heat pump water heater 100) is communicated between the heat pump host (condenser 122) and the second end device (such as a bathroom sink in an users home, paragraph 0040).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boros et al (US 20210318027 A1, hereinafter Boros) in view of Vega et al (US 20210095866 A1, hereinafter Vega).
Regarding claim 3, Boros teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the hot-water pipelines are provided with a heater, a first check valve, and a water flow switch, and the first check valve is located on a water inlet side of the heater, wherein one of the hot-water pipelines is provided with a safety valve; or, one of the cold-water pipelines is provided with a pressure gauge, and the pressure gauge is mounted on an outer side wall of the box body.
However, Vega teaches wherein the hot-water pipelines (piping 120) are provided with a heater (water heater 102), a first check valve (a check valve at the piping 116, paragraph 0029), and a water flow switch (flow detector, abstract), and the first check valve is located on a water inlet side of the heater (paragraph 0029), wherein one of the hot-water pipelines (piping 120) is provided with a safety valve (relief valve 302, figure 3); or, one of the cold-water pipelines is provided with a pressure gauge, and the pressure gauge is mounted on an outer side wall of the box body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the inventions to modify the module in the teachings of Boros to include wherein the hot-water pipelines are provided with a heater, a first check valve, and a water flow switch, and the first check valve is located on a water inlet side of the heater, wherein one of the hot-water pipelines is provided with a safety valve; or, one of the cold-water pipelines is provided with a pressure gauge, and the pressure gauge is mounted on an outer side wall of the box body in view of the teachings of Vega in order to yield the predictable result of preventing back flow to toward the water supply and preventing further increases in water pressure.
Claims 4 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boros et al (US 20210318027 A1, hereinafter Boros) in view of Scafe et al (US 20200277760 A1, hereinafter Scafe).
Regarding claim 4, Boros teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the cold-water pipeline is provided with a water pump and a second check valve, and the second check valve is located on a water outlet side of the water pump.
However, Scafe teaches wherein the cold-water pipeline (cold-water supply line 108) is provided with a water pump (water pump 104) and a second check valve (check valve 106), and the second check valve (check valve 106) is located on a water outlet side of the water pump (as shown on figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the inventions to modify the module in the teachings of Boros to include wherein the cold-water pipeline is provided with a water pump and a second check valve, and the second check valve is located on a water outlet side of the water pump in view of the teachings of Scafe in order to yield the predictable result of restricting fluid flow to circulate out of and away from the water pump outlet such that no cold water may flow into the water pump outlet.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boros et al (US 20210318027 A1, hereinafter Boros) in view of Perlman (US 20250067473 A1, hereinafter Perlman).
Regarding claim 7, Boros teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein one end of the hot-water pipelines and one end of the cold-water pipelines both pass through and are arranged on a first side wall of the box body, and the other ends both pass through and are arranged on a second side wall of the box body.
However, Perlman teaches wherein one end of the hot-water pipelines (second pipe 18) and one end of the cold-water pipelines (pipe 16) both pass through and are arranged on a first side wall of the box body (as shown on figure 1), and the other ends both pass through (as shown on figure 1) and are arranged on a second side wall of the box body (other side of holding tank 12, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the inventions to modify the module in the teachings of Boros to include wherein one end of the hot-water pipelines and one end of the cold-water pipelines both pass through and are arranged on a first side wall of the box body, and the other ends both pass through and are arranged on a second side wall of the box body in view of the teachings of Perlman in order to yield the predictable result of delivering hot water to the house.
Boros teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein end parts of the hot-water pipelines and the cold-water pipelines located on the same side wall are staggered in a width direction of a corresponding side wall.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “wherein end parts of the hot-water pipelines and the cold-water pipelines located on the same side wall are staggered in a width direction of a corresponding side wall” does anything more than produce the predictable result of delivering hot water to the house. Since it has been held that the rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify pipes 16 and 18 of Perlman and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable result of delivering hot water to the house.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boros as modified by Perlman, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Fabrizio (US 20230119604 A1, hereinafter Fabrizio).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein one end of the hot-water pipelines (second pipe 18 of Perlman) and one end of the cold-water pipelines (pipe 16 of Perlman) both pass through and are arranged on a first side wall of the box body (as shown on figure 1 of Perlman), and the other ends both pass through (as shown on figure 1 of Perlman) and are arranged on a second side wall of the box body (other side of holding tank 12, figure 1 of Perlman).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein a positioning seat is fixedly arranged in the box body, and pipeline sections of the cold-water pipelines and the hot-water pipelines close to the first side wall are both detachably connected to the positioning seat by position limitation structures.
However, Fabrizio teaches wherein a positioning seat (mounting flange 52) is fixedly arranged in the box body (housing 12, figure 4), and pipeline sections of the cold-water pipelines (water inlet 24) and the hot-water pipelines (water outlet 26) close to the first side wall (left side of housing 12, figure 4) are both detachably connected to the positioning seat (mounting flange 52) by position limitation structures (mounting flange 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the inventions to modify the module in the combined teachings to include wherein a positioning seat is fixedly arranged in the box body, and pipeline sections of the cold-water pipelines and the hot-water pipelines close to the first side wall are both detachably connected to the positioning seat by position limitation structures in view of the teachings of Fabrizio in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the two components to be directed mounted to one another.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boros et al (US 20210318027 A1, hereinafter Boros) in view of Murphy et al (US 20250043993 A1, hereinafter Murphy).
Regarding claim 14, Boros teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the multi-system water heater module further comprises an electric control assembly; the electric control assembly is integrated to an electric control base; and the electric control base is rotationally connected to the box body.
However, Murphy teaches wherein the multi-system water heater module (water heater 100) further comprises an electric control assembly (electronic controller 300); the electric control assembly is integrated to an electric control base (controller housing 146); and the electric control base (controller housing 146) is rotationally connected to the box body (as shown on figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the inventions to modify the module in the teachings of Boros to include wherein the multi-system water heater module further comprises an electric control assembly; the electric control assembly is integrated to an electric control base; and the electric control base is rotationally connected to the box body in view of the teachings of Murphy in order to yield the predictable result of selectively activate the one or more heating elements.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boros et al (US 20210318027 A1, hereinafter Boros) in view of Chen et al (CN 111397202 A, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 15, Boros teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the multi-system water heater module further comprises a front panel, wherein the front panel is pivotably connected to the box body, and is configured to cover an opening of the box body; and a recess part recessing inwardly is arranged in a middle region of an outer surface of the front panel.
However, Chen teaches wherein the multi-system water heater module (water heater, figure 3) further comprises a front panel (base 6), wherein the front panel is pivotably connected to the box body (as shown on figure 3), and is configured to cover an opening (hole 1A) of the box body (shell 1); and a recess part (bore 63) recessing inwardly is arranged in a middle region of an outer surface of the front panel (as shown on figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the inventions to modify the module in the teachings of Boros to include wherein the multi-system water heater module further comprises a front panel, wherein the front panel is pivotably connected to the box body, and is configured to cover an opening of the box body; and a recess part recessing inwardly is arranged in a middle region of an outer surface of the front panel in view of the teachings of Chen in order to yield the predictable result of adopting this structure, regardless of the vertical installation or horizontal installation, after installing the operation panel can be realized.
Further, it is understood, claim 15 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8-12 and 20 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 5 and 20, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Vega et al (US 20210095866 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein in the two water circuit systems, one of the hot-water pipelines is provided with a three-way valve, and a branch connector of the three-way valve is communicated with the other hot-water pipeline; and a cold-water connection pipeline is communicated between pipeline sections of the two cold-water pipelines being located on a water inlet side of the water pump”. The closest prior art, Vega teaches a heated water recirculation system includes a water heater having a water inlet and a water outlet. The heated water recirculation system further includes a flow detector positioned to detect inflow water flowing into the water heater through the water inlet. The heated water recirculation system also includes a controller configured to control operations of a recirculation pump based on a detection of the inflow water flowing into the water heater through the water inlet.
Regarding claim 8, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Vega et al (US 20210095866 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein a cold-water pipeline is a first cold-water pipeline and a hot-water pipeline is a first hot-water pipeline for one of the water circuit systems, and a cold-water pipeline is a second cold-water pipeline and a hot-water pipeline is a second hot-water pipeline for the other water circuit system, wherein an end part of the first cold-water pipeline, an end part of the first hot-water pipeline, an end part of the second cold-water pipeline, and an end part of the second hot-water pipeline located on the same side wall are arranged in sequence from bottom to top, and the first cold-water pipeline, the second cold-water pipeline, and the second hot-water pipeline all extend transversely between the first side wall and the second side wall, wherein the first hot-water pipeline comprises a vertical pipeline section extending vertically and a transverse pipeline section extending transversely between the first side wall and the second side wall, wherein a top end of the vertical pipeline section is communicated with one end of the transverse pipeline section towards the first side wall; a bottom end of the vertical pipeline section is connected to the first side wall by a first connecting pipeline section; and one end of the transverse pipeline section towards the second side wall is connected to the second side wall by a second connecting pipeline section, wherein the transverse pipeline section is located above the second hot-water pipeline”. The closest prior art, Vega teaches a heated water recirculation system includes a water heater having a water inlet and a water outlet. The heated water recirculation system further includes a flow detector positioned to detect inflow water flowing into the water heater through the water inlet. The heated water recirculation system also includes a controller configured to control operations of a recirculation pump based on a detection of the inflow water flowing into the water heater through the water inlet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights