DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 were filed with the amendment dated 07/16/2026.
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 substitute specification filed 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 07/16/2026, overcome the previously set forth claim objections.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 13-16 as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,713,240 (“Engelmann”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,404,905 (“Lauria”) with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 13-16. Lauria is relied upon for teaching that only an intermediate pressure sensor is used, or that only fluctuations in outlet zone is used, or that only the pressure signal from a singular pressure sensor is used. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0260310 (“Bahalul”), and the rejection of claims 7 and 8 over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0009432 (“Lapointe”) are found to be persuasive. The rejections of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 have been withdrawn.
The rejection is made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 5,713,240 (“Engelmann”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 5,404,905 (“Lauria”).
With regard to claim 1, Engelmann discloses a backflow preventer (11; Figs 1 and 3) for preventing a reverse flow of water (“backflow preventers”, see abstract) in a plumbing system (“water supply lines” – col. 1, lines 7-9), comprising: a body (12) having: an inlet (left end of 15) for connection to an upstream portion of the plumbing system; an outlet (right end of 25) for connection to a downstream portion of the plumbing system (see Fig 1); and an intermediate zone (20) between the inlet (left end of 15) and outlet (right end of 25) (col. 6, lines 45-48); an inlet check valve (13) located in the body (12) for preventing the reverse flow of water from the intermediate zone (20) through the inlet (left end of 15) (col. 6, lines 48-50; see Fig 1); an outlet check valve (14) located in the body (12) for preventing the reverse flow of water from the outlet (right end of 25) into the intermediate zone (20) (col. 6, lines 50-52); an inlet pressure sensor (28) located in an inlet zone (15) positioned in the body (12) between the inlet (left end of 15) and the inlet check valve (13) (see Fig 1) (col. 7, lines 30-35); an intermediate pressure sensor (32) located in the intermediate zone (20) (col. 7, lines 37-43, Fig 1); an outlet pressure sensor (33) located in an outlet zone (25) positioned in the body (120 between the outlet (right end of 25) and the outlet check valve (14) (see Fig 1; col. 7, lines 37-43); and a controller (31) in communication with the pressure sensors (28, 32, 33) wherein the controller (31) is operative to detect malfunction in the plumbing system based upon communications received from at least one of the pressure sensors (28, 32, 33; see col. 9, lines 4-50; see also fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
720
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the controller is operative to detect malfunction in the plumbing system based only upon communications received from the intermediate pressure sensor.
Lauria discloses a backflow preventer in a plumbing system with an inlet check valve (318), an outlet check valve (348), and an inlet zone (between 311 and 318 in Fig 3), an intermediate zone (between 318 and 348) with an intermediate pressure sensor (336), and an outlet zone (between 348 and 374), and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a malfunction detection to include detecting malfunction in the plumbing system based only upon communications received from the intermediate pressure sensor in the intermediate zone (pressure sensor 336) (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 11; Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
368
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the method of detecting malfunction utilizing only the intermediate pressure sensor by utilizing the arrangement (including drain valves and ball valves) of Lauria in the system of Engelmann for the purpose of providing a determination of a malfunction in the intermediate zone itself independently of other sensors and other downstream fluid flow (see Lauria at col. 6, line 66 to col 7, line 11).
With regard to claim 2, Engelmann (as modified by Lauria above) discloses that the malfunction is a leak (Engelmann col. 1, lines 60-65; Lauria: seat against stopper is fouled= i.e., leak; col. 7, lines 7-11) in the downstream portion (portion downstream of inlet check valve 13 in Engelmann, downstream of inlet check valve 318/322) of the plumbing system.
With regard to claim 3, Engelmann (as modified by Lauria above) discloses that the malfunction is pistoning (“pistoning” as so broadly recited is considered to be unwanted fluctuations or changes in pressures due to valve opening in an unwanted manner) in the downstream portion (portion after inlet check valve 13 in Engelmann, portion after inlet check valve 318/322 of Lauria) of the plumbing system (in Engelmann: 32 is used for determining malfunctions at steps 41 and at 46 as shown in Fig 3; which is used to determine unwanted fluctuations or pressures, see comparisons Pa vs Pb and also Pb vs Pc using the intermediate pressure sensor 32 in Fig 3; in Lauria: seat against stopper is fouled= i.e., unwanted fluctuations or changes in pressure because seat and stopper are not remaining closed in a wanted manner; col. 7, lines 7-11).
With regard to claim 6, Engelmann discloses a backflow preventer (11; Figs 1 and 3) for preventing a reverse flow of water (“backflow preventers”, see abstract) in a plumbing system (“water supply lines” – col. 1, lines 7-9), comprising: a body (12) having: an inlet (left end of 15) for connection to an upstream portion (portion upstream of inlet check valve 13) of the plumbing system; an outlet (right end of 25) for connection to a downstream portion (portion after inlet check valve 13) of the plumbing system; and an intermediate zone (20) between the inlet (left end of 15) and outlet (right end of 25) (col. 6, lines 45-48); an inlet check valve (13) located in the body (12) for preventing the reverse flow of water from the intermediate zone (20) through the inlet (left end of 15; see Fig 1) (col. 6, lines 48-50); an outlet check valve (14) located in the body (12) for preventing the reverse flow of water from the outlet (right end of 25) into the intermediate zone (20) (col 6, lines 50-52; Fig 1); an outlet pressure sensor (33) located in an outlet zone (25) positioned in the body (12) between the outlet (right end of 25) and the outlet check valve (14) for generating an outlet zone pressure signal (Pc; see fig 3); and a controller (31) in communication with the outlet pressure sensor (33), wherein the controller (31) is operative to detect a leak in the downstream portion (portion downstream of inlet check valve 13) based upon fluctuations in the outlet zone pressure signal (Pc) (see col. 9, lines 4-50; see also fig 3).
Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the controller is operative to detect a leak in the downstream portion based only upon fluctuations in the outlet zone pressure signal.
Lauria discloses a backflow preventer in a plumbing system with an inlet check valve (318), an outlet check valve (348), and an inlet zone (between 311 and 318 in Fig 3), an intermediate zone (between 318 and 348) with an intermediate pressure sensor (336), and an outlet zone (between 348 and 374) with outlet pressure sensor (366), and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a malfunction detection to include detecting a leak based only upon fluctuations in the outlet zone pressure signal (from outlet pressure sensor 366) (col. 7, lines 12-24; Fig 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
368
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the method of detecting a leak utilizing only the outlet pressure sensor by utilizing the arrangement (including drain valves and ball valves) of Lauria in the system of Engelmann for the purpose of providing a determination of a leak in the outlet zone itself independently of other sensors and other downstream fluid flow (see Lauria at col. 7, lines 12-24, and Fig 3).
With regard to claim 9, Engelmann discloses an intermediate pressure sensor (32) located in the intermediate zone (20) for generating an intermediate zone pressure signal (Pb), wherein the controller (31) is in communication with the intermediate pressure sensor (32) and operative to detect a leak based upon fluctuations in the intermediate zone pressure signal (Pb) when the inlet and outlet check valves are closed (col. 8, lines 64-66 valves are closed) (col. 8, lines 15-19; determines leak/malfunction based on fluctuations in Pb that causes Pa-Pb to be less than 1 psi or that causes Pb-Pc to be less than 1 psi, see Fig 3).
Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the controller is operative to a leak based only upon fluctuations in the intermediate zone pressure signal when the inlet and outlet check valves are closed.
Lauria discloses a backflow preventer in a plumbing system with an inlet check valve (318), an outlet check valve (348), and an inlet zone (between 311 and 318 in Fig 3), an intermediate zone (between 318 and 348) with an intermediate pressure sensor (336), and an outlet zone (between 348 and 374), and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a leak detection to include detecting a leak based only upon fluctuations from the intermediate pressure sensor in the intermediate zone (pressure sensor 336) (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 11; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the method of detecting a leak utilizing only the intermediate zone pressure signal by utilizing the arrangement (including drain valves and ball valves) of Lauria in the system of Engelmann for the purpose of providing a determination of a leak in the intermediate zone itself independently of other sensors and other downstream fluid flow (see Lauria at col. 6, line 66 to col 7, line 11).
With regard to claim 10, Engelmann (as modified by Lauria above for claim 9) discloses that controller (31) is operative to identify pistoning (“pistoning” as so broadly recited is considered to be unwanted fluctuations or changes in pressures due to valve opening in an unwanted manner) in the downstream portion (portion after inlet check valve 13 in Engelmann; portion after inlet check valve 318/322 of Lauria) based on the intermediate zone pressure signal (in Engelmann: 32/Pb; 32 is used for determining malfunctions at steps 41 and at 46 as shown in Fig 3; which is used to determine unwanted fluctuations or pressures, see comparisons Pa vs Pb and also Pb vs Pc using the intermediate pressure sensor 32 in Fig 3; in Lauria: seat against stopper is fouled= i.e., unwanted fluctuations or changes in pressure because seat and stopper are not remaining closed in a wanted manner; col. 7, lines 7-11) .
With regard to claim 13, Engelmann (as modified by Lauria above for claim 9) discloses an inlet pressure sensor (28 in Engelmann), and discloses that the controller (31) is further operative to generate a leak error (col 1, lines 60-65) signal if an inlet zone pressure signal (Pa) from the inlet pressure sensor (28) rises while both check valves (13, 14) are in a closed position (col. 8, lines 64-66) (controller 31 is “operative” (i.e., capable of) determining a leak error if the inlet zone signal Pa rises and intermediate zone Pb signal rises greater than that of Pa by more than 1 psi, see Fig 3).
Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the controller is operative to generate a leak error signal based only upon a rise in an inlet zone pressure signal from the inlet pressure sensor.
Lauria discloses a backflow preventer in a plumbing system with an inlet check valve (532), an outlet check valve (572), and an inlet zone (between 511 and 532 in Fig 5) with an inlet pressure sensor (526), an intermediate zone (between 532 and 572) with an intermediate pressure sensor (560), and an outlet zone (between 572 and 578), and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a leak detection to include detecting a leak based only upon a rise in an inlet zone pressure signal from the inlet pressure sensor (526) (col 9, lines 53-63 and Fig 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the method of detecting a leak utilizing only the rise in an inlet zone pressure signal from an inlet pressure sensor by utilizing the arrangement (including drain valves and ball valves) of Lauria in the system of Engelmann for the purpose of providing a determination of a leak in the inlet zone itself independently of other sensors and other downstream fluid flow (see Lauria at col. 9, lines 53-63 and Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 14, Engelmann discloses that the controller (31) is further operative to: monitor a pressure differential (Pb-Pc) between the outlet zone (Pc) and the intermediate zone (Pb); compare the pressure differential to a pre-set range (more than 1 psi; see 47 in Fig 3); generate a first message when the pressure differential is outside the pre- set range (at 48; see col. 9, lines 35-37 – “reported as failed”); monitor an inlet zone pressure signal (Pa) from an inlet pressure sensor (28); and generate a second message (at 43; see col. 9 lines 15-18 – “reported as failed”) if the inlet zone pressure signal varies inappropriately (if inlet pressure signal Pa varies inappropriately so that Pa-Pb is less than 1 psi).
Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the controller generates a second message based only upon the inlet zone pressure signal varying inappropriately.
Lauria discloses a backflow preventer in a plumbing system with an inlet check valve (532), an outlet check valve (572), and an inlet zone (between 511 and 532 in Fig 5) with an inlet pressure sensor (526), an intermediate zone (between 532 and 572) with an intermediate pressure sensor (560), and an outlet zone (between 572 and 578), and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a leak detection to include detecting a leak based only upon an inlet zone pressure signal from the inlet pressure sensor (526) varies inappropriately (col 9, lines 53-63 and Fig 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the method of detecting a leak/malfunction utilizing only the inlet zone pressure signal from an inlet pressure sensor varies inappropriately by utilizing the arrangement (including drain valves and ball valves) of Lauria in the system of Engelmann for the purpose of providing a determination of a leak/malfunction in the inlet zone itself independently of other sensors and other downstream fluid flow (see Lauria at col. 9, lines 53-63 and Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 15, Engelmann discloses a backflow preventer (11; Figs 1 and 3) for preventing a reverse flow of water (“backflow preventers”, see abstract) in a plumbing system (“water supply lines” – col. 1, lines 7-9), comprising: a body (12) having an inlet check valve (13) and an outlet check valve (14; col. 6, lines 48-52); a singular pressure sensor (33) coupled to the body (12) for generating a pressure signal (Pc) of the water (as the claim is open ended “comprising”, additional sensors in the system do not invalidate meeting the claim limitation; 33 is, by itself, a singular pressure sensor; and a controller (31) in communication with the pressure sensor (33; see Fig 3), wherein the controller (31) is operative to detect a malfunction of the backflow preventer based upon fluctuations in the pressure signal (if improper fluctuations so that Pb-Pc is less than 1.0 psi, than malfunction, see Fig 3).
Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing that the controller is operative to detect a malfunction based only upon fluctuations in the pressure signal.
Lauria discloses a backflow preventer in a plumbing system with an inlet check valve (318), an outlet check valve (348), and an inlet zone (between 311 and 318 in Fig 3), an intermediate zone (between 318 and 348), and an outlet zone (between 348 and 374) with outlet pressure sensor (366), and teaches that it is known in the art to modify a malfunction detection to include detecting a malfunction based only upon fluctuations in the outlet zone pressure signal from a singular pressure sensor 366) (col. 7, lines 12-24; Fig 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
368
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the method of detecting a leak utilizing only the outlet pressure sensor by utilizing the arrangement (including drain valves and ball valves) of Lauria in the system of Engelmann for the purpose of providing a determination of a leak in the outlet zone itself independently of other sensors and other downstream fluid flow (see Lauria at col. 7, lines 12-24, and Fig 3).
With regard to claim 16, Engelmann (as modified above by Lauria) discloses that the body (12) defines an outlet zone (25 in Engelmann; portion downstream of 348 in Lauria) connected to the plumbing system (see Fig 1); the pressure signal (from outlet pressure sensor 366) indicates pressure of the water in the outlet zone (see Fig 3 of Lauria); and the malfunction is a leak in a downstream portion of the plumbing system (col. 7, lines 12-24, Fig. 3 of Lauria).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 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: Applicants’ arguments, submitted on 07/16/2026, are found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA CAHILL whose telephone number is (571)270-5219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 to 3:00.
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 571-272-60073607 or Kenneth 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 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.
/JESSICA CAHILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights