DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 were filed with the application on 12/31/2024.
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) submitted on 03/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “intermediate pressure zone” in claim 1, line 10 should be changed to “intermediate zone”, in order to be consistent with preceding phrases in line 5 and 7.
The phrase “wherein controller” in claim 10 should be changed to “wherein the controller” to correct a typographical error.
The phrase “outlet pressure zone” in claim 14 should be changed to “outlet zone” in order to be consistent with preceding phrasing in claim 6.
The phrase “intermediate pressure zone” in claim 14 should be changed to “intermediate zone” in order to be consistent with preceding phrasing set forth in claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6, 9, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 5,713,240 (“Engelmann”).
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 pressure 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 pressure zone (20) (col. 7, lines 37-43, Fig 1); an outlet pressure sensor (33) located in an outlet pressure 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
With regard to claim 2, Engelmann discloses that the malfunction is a leak (col. 1, lines 60-65) in the downstream portion (portion downstream of inlet check valve 13) of the plumbing system and the at least one of the pressure sensors is the outlet pressure sensor (33 is used in determination of malfunction leak in downstream portion, see Fig 3, pressure Pc from 33 is used in determination of error.
With regard to claim 3, Engelmann 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) of the plumbing system and the at least one of the pressure sensors is the intermediate pressure sensor (32) (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).
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).
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).
With regard to claim 10, Engelmann 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) based on the intermediate zone pressure signal (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) .
With regard to claim 13, Engelmann 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).
With regard to claim 14, Engelmann discloses that the controller (31) is further operative to: monitor a pressure differential (Pb-Pc) between the outlet pressure zone (Pc) and the intermediate pressure 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).
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 pressure sensor (33) coupled to the body (12) for generating a pressure signal (Pc) of the water; 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).
With regard to claim 16, Engelmann discloses that the body (12) defines an outlet zone (25) connected to the plumbing system (see Fig 1); the pressure signal (Pc) indicates pressure of the water in the outlet zone (25, see Fig 1 and Fig 3); and the malfunction is a leak in a downstream portion of the plumbing system (col. 1, lines 60-65; and see col. 9, lines 25-50).
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 4, 5, 11 and 12 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. Pub. No. 2015/0260310 (“Bahalul”).
With regard to claim 4, Engelmann discloses the controller (31) communicates with the inlet (28), intermediate (32), and outlet (33) pressure sensors (see Fig 3).
Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein based upon communication with the inlet, intermediate and outlet pressure sensors, the controller is further operative to: determine and monitor a first cracking pressure of the inlet check valve; determine and monitor a second cracking pressure of the outlet check valve; generate a first warning signal based upon deviation of the first cracking pressure; and generate a second warning signal based upon deviation of the second cracking pressure.
Bahalul teaches a check valve device (10) that includes pressure and position sensors (12) (paras [0014] and [0015]) in combination with a controller (processor 20) to determine, among other things, the position of the check valve.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add position sensors, such as taught by Bahalul, to each check valve of Engelmann for the purpose of providing real-time measurements and continuous position of the check valve to determine proper flow (paras [0003] and [0014]).
The references do not explicitly state that the controller determines a cracking pressure for each check valve.
However, 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 information obtained from the position sensors (open/shut/cracked) and pressure (pressure at that same time as open/shut/cracked) to arrive at a cracking pressure, or any other suitable information derived from the pressure and position sensors.
With regard to claim 5, Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing a first position sensor for sensing a closed position of the inlet check valve; and a second position sensor for sensing a closed position of the outlet check valve, wherein the controller is further operative to determine the first and second cracking pressures when the first and second position sensors, respectively, indicate that the inlet check valve and the outlet check valve transition from the closed position.
Bahalul teaches a check valve device (10) that includes pressure and position sensors (12) (paras [0014] and [0015]) in combination with a controller (processor 20) to determine, among other things, the position of the check valve.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add position sensors for each check valve, such as taught by Bahalul, to each check valve of Engelmann for the purpose of providing real-time measurements and continuous position of the check valve to determine proper flow (paras [0003] and [0014]).
The references do not explicitly state that the controller determines a cracking pressure for each check valve.
However, 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 information obtained from the position sensors (open/shut/cracked) and pressure (pressure at that same time as open/shut/cracked) to arrive at a cracking pressure, or any other suitable information derived from the pressure and position sensors.
With regard to claim 11, Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing wherein the controller determines: a first cracking pressure for the inlet check valve based upon communications received from an inlet pressure sensor, and an intermediate pressure sensor; a second cracking pressure for the outlet check valve based upon communications received from the intermediate pressure sensor, and the outlet pressure sensor; and generates an error signal if the first or second cracking pressure is outside a predetermined range, and wherein the first cracking pressure is equal to a difference between the inlet zone pressure signal and the intermediate zone pressure signal and the second cracking pressure is equal to a difference between the outlet zone pressure signal and the intermediate zone pressure signal.
Engelmann does disclose an inlet pressure sensor (28), an intermediate pressure sensor (32), and an outlet pressure sensor (33). Engelmann discloses generating an error signal if a pressure between the inlet and intermediate pressure sensors is outside a range (Pa-Pb is less than 1 psi; see Fig 3) and that an error signal is generated if a pressure between the intermediate pressure sensor and outlet pressure sensor is outside a predetermined range (if Pb-Pc is less than 1 psi, see Fig 3).
Bahalul teaches a check valve device (10) that includes pressure and position sensors (12) (paras [0014] and [0015]) in combination with a controller (processor 20) to determine, among other things, the position of the check valve.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add position sensors for each check valve, such as taught by Bahalul, to each check valve of Engelmann for the purpose of providing real-time measurements and continuous position of the check valve to determine proper flow (paras [0003] and [0014]).
The references do not explicitly state that the controller determines a cracking pressure for each check valve.
However, 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 information obtained from the position sensors (open/shut/cracked) and pressure (pressure at that same time as open/shut/cracked) to arrive at a cracking pressure, or any other suitable information derived from the pressure and position sensors.
With regard to claim 12, the combination discloses that a closing pressure of the outlet check valve (14) is equal to a difference between the outlet zone pressure signal and an intermediate zone pressure signal (Pb-Pc) from the intermediate pressure sensor (32) (shown in Fig 3) (valve is closed; col. 8, lines 64-68).
Claims 7 and 8 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. Pub. 2017/0009432 (“Lapointe”).
With regard to claim 7, Engelmann discloses all the claimed features with the exception of disclosing an expansion tank connected downstream from the outlet check valve, the expansion tank having a motorized valve for selectively connecting the expansion tank to the plumbing system, wherein the controller is further operative to identify pistoning and selectively fluidly connect the expansion tank to the plumbing system to stabilize pressure in the outlet zone and mitigate the pistoning.
Engelmann does disclose that the controller 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) (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).
Lapointe discloses a plumbing system with valves (see Figs 1 and 9A) and teaches that it is known in the art to a plumbing system to include an expansion tank (926, para [0133]) connected downstream from the outlet check valve (downstream of valves 920), the expansion tank (926) having a motorized valve (electronic valve 914 is a motorized valve as so broadly recited) for selectively connecting the expansion tank (926) to the plumbing system (upstream components) (914 turns off or on flow to tank 926 from upstream plumbing system), wherein the controller (1018, para [0135]) is further operative to selectively fluidly connect the expansion tank (926) to the plumbing system (upstream components) to stabilize pressure in the outlet zone and mitigate the pistoning (1018 controls valve 914, see para [0140]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add an expansion tank and motorized valve, such as taught by Lapointe, in flow line/plumbing system of Engelmann downstream of the valves (13, 14) for the purpose of receiving excess water and “avoid any unnecessary stress” on the plumbing system (see para [0133]). The combination of the expansion tank and motorized valve of Lapointe with the system of Engelmann provides the controller (31 in Engelmann) to be further operative to identify pistoning (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) and selectively fluidly connect the expansion tank (926 in Lapointe) to the plumbing system to stabilize pressure in the outlet zone and mitigate the pistoning (by preventing unwanted stress on the system as taught by Lapointe, see para [0133]).
With regard to claim 8, Engelmann discloses 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) for generating an inlet zone pressure signal (Pa; see col. 8, lines 12-15); and the controller (31) is further operative to identify pistoning based on the inlet zone pressure signal (“pistoning” as so broadly recited is considered to be unwanted fluctuations or changes in pressures due to valve opening in an unwanted manner) (28 is used for determining malfunctions at step 41 as shown in Fig 3; which is used to determine unwanted fluctuations or pressures, see comparisons Pa vs Pb c using the inlet pressure sensor 28 in Fig 3).
Lapointe discloses a plumbing system with valves (see Figs 1 and 9A) and teaches that it is known in the art to a plumbing system to include an expansion tank (926, para [0133]) connected downstream from the outlet check valve (downstream of valves 920), the expansion tank (926) having a motorized valve (electronic valve 914 is a motorized valve as so broadly recited) for selectively connecting the expansion tank (926) to the plumbing system (upstream components) (914 turns off or on flow to tank 926 from upstream plumbing system), wherein the controller (1018, para [0135]) is further operative to selectively fluidly connect the expansion tank (926) to the plumbing system (upstream components) to stabilize pressure in the outlet zone and mitigate the pistoning (1018 controls valve 914, see para [0140]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add an expansion tank and motorized valve, such as taught by Lapointe, in flow line/plumbing system of Engelmann downstream of the valves (13, 14) for the purpose of receiving excess water and “avoid any unnecessary stress” on the plumbing system (see para [0133]). The combination of the expansion tank and motorized valve of Lapointe with the system of Engelmann provides the controller (31 in Engelmann) to be further operative to identify pistoning (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) and selectively fluidly connect the expansion tank (926 in Lapointe) to the plumbing system to stabilize pressure in the outlet zone and mitigate the pistoning (by preventing unwanted stress on the system as taught by Lapointe, see para [0133]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,404,905 discloses a backflow preventer with failure indicator.
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