DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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
Claims 13-19 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 June 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 February 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
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 1-3, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunahoo (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0341143) in view of Soberano (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0310578).
Regarding claim 1, Dunahoo discloses a system for detection of water in a conduit 114, comprising:
a casing (of 142/120) configured to be attached to the conduit on an exterior of the conduit;
a sensor assembly 142 supported by the casing and configured to sense a presence of water within the conduit (FIG. 1, 9-10; Paragraph 101).
Dunahoo is silent regarding the sensor assembly comprising a first probe having a first probe contact accessible within the casing, the first probe configured to extend into an interior of the conduit to be exposed in the interior of the conduit, and a second probe having a second probe contact accessible within the casing, the second probe configured to extend into the interior of the conduit to be exposed in the interior of the conduit, wherein the first probe and the second probe are spaced from each other and electrically isolated from each other and an electronic component contained within the casing and connected to the first probe contact and the second probe contact to place the electronic component in electronic communication with the first probe and the second probe.
However, Soberano teaches a system for detection of water in a conduit 107 comprising: a sensor assembly (“internal flow sensor” Paragraph 42) comprising a first probe having a first probe contact accessible within the casing, the first probe configured to extend into an interior of the conduit to be exposed in the interior of the conduit, and a second probe having a second probe contact accessible within the casing, the second probe configured to extend into the interior of the conduit to be exposed in the interior of the conduit (“[a]n internal flow sensor in the angle stop may detect or monitor water flow. An internal flow sensor may monitor flow of water from the inlet pipe behind the wall and through the angle stop” Paragraph 42), wherein the first probe and the second probe are spaced from each other and electrically isolated from each other and an electronic component (“controller” Paragraph 27) contained within the casing and connected to the first probe contact and the second probe contact to place the electronic component in electronic communication with the first probe and the second probe (FIG. 1A; Paragraph 27, 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Dunahoo by making the sensor assembly comprise two spaced apart probes connected to a controller, as taught by Soberano, for the purpose of providing a known sensor orientation capable and intended to operate and provide the appropriate information to the system.
Regarding claim 2, Dunahoo, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Dunahoo/Soberano further teaches the casing comprises a main casing (of Dunahoo 142/120) configured to be attached to the conduit and supporting the sensor assembly, and a secondary casing (of Soberano controller) removably connected to the main casing, wherein the secondary casing contains the electronic component (Dunahoo FIG. 9, Paragraph 101; Soberano Paragraph 27, 42).
Regarding claim 3, Dunahoo, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Soberano further teaches a first contact and a second contact (where the probes connect to the controller) supported by the secondary casing (the connection occurs at the housing of the controller) and electronically connected to the electronic component, wherein the first contact and the second contact are positioned to engage the first probe contact and the second probe contact when the secondary casing is connected to the main casing, thereby placing the first probe and the second probe in electronic communication with the electronic component (Soberano Paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 6, Dunahoo, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Dunahoo further discloses the main casing has a central passage (See FIG. 10) configured to receive the conduit therethrough, such that the main casing is configured to extend around the conduit, and the main casing comprises two pieces joined together (FIG. 12 shows the float 124 as a two piece component), with each of the two pieces defining a portion of the central passage (FIG. 9-12).
Regarding claim 10, Dunahoo, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Dunahoo/Soberano further teaches the electronic component comprises a power source configured to deliver power to the sensor assembly (Soberano Paragraph 6).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunahoo in view of Soberano in further view of Parsons (U.S. Patent 7,383,721).
Regarding claim 4, Dunahoo, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2.
Dunahoo is silent regarding the main casing has a slot on an outer side thereof, and the secondary casing has a projection on an inner side thereof, and wherein the secondary casing is removably connected to the main casing by the projection being received in the slot.
However, Parsons teaches connecting the casing of an electronic component (controller 80) to the main casing (body 256), the main casing has a slot (opening through which 80 is inserted) on an outer side thereof (top, FIG. 8A orientation), and the secondary casing has a projection (projection of the threads of the threaded connection) on an inner side thereof, and wherein the secondary casing is removably connected to the main casing by the projection being received in the slot (FIG. 8A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Dunahoo by connecting the main casing and the secondary casing wherein the secondary casing is removably connected to the main casing by the projection being received in the slot, as taught by Parsons, for the purpose of providing a known means of connecting leak detection components together in a reversible manner.
Regarding claim 5, Dunahoo, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 4.
Dunahoo/Parsons further teaches the slot and the projection are oriented horizontally (the opening at the top of the housing and the threads of the actuator extend horizontally), and the secondary casing is removably connected to the main casing by the projection sliding horizontally into the slot (rotation of the actuator horizontally slides the threads together) (Parsons FIG. 8A).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunahoo in view of Soberano in further view of Kitaura (U.S. Patent 11,332,917).
Regarding claim 11, Dunahoo, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Dunahoo is silent regarding a plurality of electronic components, including the electronic component, contained within the casing, wherein the plurality of electronic components comprise a power source, a processor, a memory, and a communication device configured for communication with an external device.
However, Kitaura teaches a controller 40 having a plurality of electronic components, including the electronic component, contained within the casing, wherein the plurality of electronic components comprise a power source, a processor, a memory, and a communication device configured for communication with an external device (Col. 9 ln 6-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Dunahoo by including a power source, processor, memory, and communication device in the controller, as taught by Parsons, for the purpose of utilizing the data acquired by the sensor to operate the assembly in the desired manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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: the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious a sensor body having a first passage and a second passage therethrough, the second passage spaced from the first passage, the sensor body comprising an outer portion configured to be positioned on an exterior of the conduit and a projection configured to extend through a hole in the conduit and into an interior of the conduit, and wherein the first probe and the second probe are received through the first passage and the second passage, respectively, and configured to be exposed in the interior of the conduit, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Additionally, the closest prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious the restrictor tray comprises a vessel configured to collect the water flowing through the conduit and to restrict a rate of the water exiting the vessel to a sufficient degree to permit the first probe and the second probe to contact the water during a low flow run-on condition, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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 supervisor, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights