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 with traverse of invention Group II, drawn to claims 5-15 and new claims 16-19 in the reply filed on 6 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of both invention groups would not result in serious search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the method and apparatus claims are NOT commensurate in scope. As indicated in the restriction requirement, the apparatus can perform a different process and/or the process can be used with a different apparatus. For example, the process can use an apparatus having an independent ionizer separate from the pump since it does not require a pump having at least two outlet ports, an ionizer positioned in one of the outlet ports of the pump, or a controller configured to terminate power to the motor and simultaneously terminating power to the ionizer. And, the apparatus can practice a different process such as single speed operation for a single set duration since it does not require initiating a timer upon receiving power to the controller, initiating a start-up procedure of the controller, or setting first and second time or speed durations. Therefore, examination of either of the process or apparatus claims requires searching for different aspects of each invention not necessarily required in the other resulting in serious search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the instant response as set forth above.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-9, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 3, “a motor” should read --the motor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-19 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.
In claim 5, line 11, “the first speed duration and second speed duration” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because first or second speed durations have not been previously recited or defined rendering it unclear whether these speed durations are related to the previously recited first and second durations or whether these are separate speed variables all together. This renders the scope of the claim subject to uncertainty. For examination, first and second speed durations will be assumed. Correction is required.
In claim 5, line 12, the terms “the total duration of the countdown timer” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because neither a total duration or a countdown timer have been previously recited or defined rendering it unclear whether these times are related to the previously recited first and second durations or new time durations all together. This renders the scope of the claim subject to uncertainty. For examination, the terms will be interpreted as a total time of operation or a cycle time. Correction is required.
In claim 9, line 2, “the first speed” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because a first speed has not been previously recited or defined rendering it unclear whether this speed is associated with the first duration or a separate speed all together. This renders the scope of the claim subject to uncertainty. Correction is required.
In claim 10, line 4, “the controller” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because a controller has not been previously recited or defined rendering the scope of the claim subject to uncertainty. Correction is required.
In claim 5, line 12, the terms “the total duration of the countdown timer” is indefinite for lacking sufficient antecedent basis in the claims because neither a total duration or a countdown timer have been previously recited or defined rendering it unclear whether these times are related to the previously recited first and second durations or new time durations all together. This renders the scope of the claim subject to uncertainty. For examination, the terms will be interpreted as a total time of operation or a cycle time. 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.
Claims 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0286859) in view of Jones et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0314762).
As to claim 5, Ortiz et al. discloses a method for controlling a fluid circulation system having a motor driving a pump capable of dual speed operation (FIG.’s 1-5, Abstract, para. 0038, two speed pump 30 driven by motor; the method is inherently performed when operating the system1), comprising the steps of:
providing power to a controller 48 (FIG. 1, para. 0027) in electrical communication with a motor (para. 0007) driving a pump 30, Id.;
initiating a timer upon receiving power to the controller 48 (FIG. 5, para. 0033, system operation during times, T0-T5 requires an initializing timer);
initiating a start-up procedure (para. 0033, T0-T1, start-up operations for priming pump 30) of the controller 48;
setting a first duration for operating the motor (Id., T1-T2, low speed motor/pump for Filter operations requires setting a first duration for the T1-T2 time period indicated);
setting a second duration for operating the motor (Id., T2-T3, high speed for Clean operations requires setting a second duration for the T2-T3 time period indicated);
activating the motor (para. 0047, inherent for operating pump 30); and
wherein the sum of the first speed duration (T1-T2) and second speed duration (T2-T3) is less than or equal to the total duration of the countdown timer (T0-T5, this total cycle time is less than the first and second durations identified, interpreted as the recited countdown timer under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms as currently understood2).
Ortiz is silent as to an ionizer, and activating the ionizer upon activation of the motor. To this point, Jones teaches a swimming pool cleaning system having a control system 16 and timer 17 configured to activate a pump and ionizer 15 (FIG. 1, para.’s 0071-0072). The cleaning system is operated during a cycle time by timer 17, powering the components accordingly, Id. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ortiz so that is method includes providing power to both the pump and an ionizer in the manner claimed for cleaning and sanitizing the liquid being pumped as taught by Jones (para. 0031, inter alia).
As to claim 6, Ortiz, upon modification, further discloses the countdown timer lasts 24 hours (para. 0056, discussing a day timer).
As to claim 7, the applied art is silent as to the countdown timer lasts 12 hours. The countdown timer is equivalent to cycle time, a variable typically programmed into the controller by a user and is dependent upon pool use and water sanitation requirements as indicated by Ortiz (para. 0034) and Jones (para. 0031). In other words, cycle time or countdown timer is a result effective parameter that determines sanitation requirements based upon use. With this in mind, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the cycle or countdown time as a routine optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to modify Ortiz and Jones and make the countdown time 12 hours in order to optimize sanitization operations indicated by the applied art references since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II).
As to claim 8, Ortiz further discloses a prime is established during the start-up procedure of the controller 48 (FIG. 5, para. 0033, T0-T1, high speed operations to prime pump 30).
As to claim 9, Ortiz further discloses a prime is established during operation of the first speed (as currently understood, prime is performed corresponding to first speed operations3).
As to claim 10, Ortiz et al., discloses a method for controlling a fluid circulation system having a motor driving a pump capable of variable speed operation (FIG.’s 1-5, Abstract, variable speed pump; method inherently performed when operating the system4), comprising the steps of:
providing power to the controller 48 (FIG. 1, para. 0027) in electrical communication with the motor (para. 0007), and having at least two programs capable of individualized speed and duration (para. 0033, disclosing programmable speed operations comprising at least two programs interpreted as separate speeds and times of operation between T0 and T5);
initiating a timer upon receiving power to the controller 48 (FIG. 5, para. 0033, system operation during times, T0-T5 requires an initialized timer);
initiating a start-up procedure of the controller 48 (para. 0033, T0-T1, start-up operations for priming pump 30);
setting a first speed and first duration for operating the motor (Id., T1-T2, low speed motor/pump for Filter operations requires setting a first duration for the T1-T2 time period);
setting a second speed and second duration for operating the motor (Id., T2-T3, high speed for Clean operations requires setting the second duration time period corresponding to T2-T3);
and activating the motor (para. 0047, inherent for operating pump 30);
wherein the sum of the first duration (T1-T2) and second duration (T2-T3) is less than or equal to the total duration of the countdown timer (T0-T5, this total cycle time is less than the first and second durations identified, is interpreted as the recited countdown timer under broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms as currently understood5).
Ortiz is silent as to an ionizer and the controller being in electrical communication with the motor and ionizer, and activating the ionizer and motor together. To this point, Jones teaches a swimming pool cleaning system having a control system 16 and timer 17 in electrical communication with and configured to activate a pump and ionizer 15 (FIG. 1, para.’s 0071-0072). The cleaning system is operated during a cycle time by timer 17, powering the components accordingly, Id. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ortiz so that is method includes providing power to both the pump and an ionizer in the manner claimed for cleaning and sanitizing the liquid being pumped as taught by Jones (para. 0031, inter alia).
As to claim 11, refer to the rejection of claim 6, supra.
As to claim 12, refer to the rejection of claim 7, supra.
As to claim 13, refer to the rejection of claim 8, supra.
As to claim 14, refer to the rejection of claim 9, supra.
As to claim 15, Ortiz further discloses an additional speed and additional duration for operating the motor may be set (FIG. 5, para. 0033, note T3-T4 or T4-T5 operations for Filtering or Off operations, each forming additional speed and duration operations in the manner claimed).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0286859) in view of Jones et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0314762) as applied to claims 5 and 10 above, further in view of Hudson (U. S. Patent No. 5,013,415).
As to claims 16 and 18, the applied art is discussed above. Ortiz further discloses controller 48 providing power to the motor (para. 0047, broadly describing pump motor operation by controller 48). However, the applied art is expressly silent as to the controller configured to provide power from a power supply and control activation of the motor and simultaneously provide power to the ionizer upon activation of the motor. To this point, Hudson teaches a water purification system having a controller 20 and timer 19 operating pumps 17, 18 and ionizer 13 from power supply conductors 21-23 (FIG. 1, col. 2, ll. 60-63) indicating the components are operated together by a single controller. That is, the single controller powers and controls each component __interpreted as equivalent to activation simultaneously in the manner claimed. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the applied art so that the controller is configured power to the motor and ionizer simultaneously in order to synchronize cleaning operations by powering on/off the pump and ionizer concurrently under the control of a single controller as demonstrated by Hudson, Id.
As to claims 17 and 19, the applied art is discussed above. Ortiz further discloses controller 48 providing power to the motor (para. 0047, broadly describing pump motor operation by controller 48). However, the applied art is expressly silent as to the controller is configured to terminate power to the motor and simultaneously terminates power to the ionizer. To this point, Hudson teaches a water purification system having a controller 20 and timer 19 operating pumps 17, 18 and ionizer 13 (FIG. 1, col. 2, ll. 60-63) indicating that each element is controlled together by the single controller __interpreted as equivalent to termination simultaneously in the manner claimed. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the applied art so that the controller is configured power to the motor and ionizer simultaneously in order to synchronize cleaning operations by powering on/off the pump and ionizer concurrently under the control of a single controller as demonstrated by Hudson, Id.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
2 Note aforesaid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, supra.
3 Ibid.
4 Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
5 Note aforesaid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, supra.
