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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination. Priority Date: 23 April 2024. Assig: Microshare.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al., U.S. 4,736,622
On claim 1, Miller cites except as underlined:
A water backup detection system, comprising:
a slanted bar tapering from one edge to opposite edge, the slanted bar is segmented into a plurality of detection zones;
figure 7 and col. 6, lines 13-23 However, the lower ends of the wire conductors 100 such as wire conductor ends 201, 202, 203, 204 . . . 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, and 224 are bare, uninsulated, exposed end portions 201-224 spaced vertically above each other a predetermined distance H and horizontally a predetermined distance L from each other on the inclined bottom edge 126 of the plate assembly 124 as shown in FIG. 7 for providing an array of sensors (conductor end portions) 201-224 having a predetermined sensitivity as will be described in greater detail hereinafter.
(the shape disclosed in figure 7 is a slanted bar tapering from one edge to the opposite edge)
a sensor assembly, with a sensor correspondingly attached to each of the plurality of detection zones on the slanted bar;
figure 7, contacts 201 through 224
and
a housing, enclosing the slanted bar, having side slots for controlled water entry,
figure 11, housing 414 and water inlet
wherein the sensor assembly is configured to trigger an alert corresponding to a water level in the housing.
Col. 1, lines 61-67 and col. 2, lines 1-6
According to the teachings of the present invention, there is provided a method for determining the presence of a leak in an above ground tank of liquid hydrocarbons having a lower specific gravity and a lower electrical or thermal conductivity than water, said method comprising the steps of: determining the level of water in said tank; sensing changes in the level of water in the tank over time by sensing changes in conductivity at points along a line extending across an interface between the liquid hydrocarbon and the water in the tank; and, determining the amount and rate of leakage relative to the capacity of the tank and the change in the level of the water in the tank over a selected time period.
Regarding the excepted: side slots, as disclosed above, Miller discloses a water inlet in figure 11. Miller doesn’t disclose using side slots for controlled water entry.
However, Miller, figure 11, discloses a “water inlet,” which allows water into the leak detector 414.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Miller an embodiment wherein the claimed “side slots” is met with a synonymous “water inlet” where each respective element allows water into their respective devices to be measured. One of ordinary skill would have understood both elements to be identical in purpose and therefore, assert the elements to be otherwise identical.
Regarding the excepted “controlled water entry,” the applicant’s specification defines this feature as:
[0029] The enclosure's design also maximizes the sensor's ability to detect water in a controlled manner. Water can only enter the enclosure when it accumulates beyond a certain threshold, triggering the sensor's alert system. This minimizes environmental interference and ensures that the sensor is activated only during a water backup event, providing reliable detection and reducing the likelihood of false alerts.
In other words, water entry can only be of a concern when the embodiment is placed in an environment and conditions which triggers the embodiment’s water detection and alarm feature. However, due to the Doctrine of Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, this particular condition as described in the applicant’s specification is not considered limiting. (MPEP 2111).
In the immediate case, Miller, col. 2, lines 7-12, discloses:
In practicing the method, prior to making a test for leaks, water is introduced into the tank to form a water layer on the bottom of the tank. Typically, this is accomplished the night before testing to allow equilibrium in the water layer and water-liquid interface to take place.
and col 2, lines 21-37, discloses:
The leak detector is lifted out of the tank and the position of the water level line is noted. Then the sensor assembly comprising an array of bare uninsulated conductor ends or thermal sensors which are arranged in a line, is positioned in the area of the water level with the line of the array extending at an angle to the horizontal and across or intersecting the plane containing the water level line.
and col. 2, lines 29-30 discloses:
The leak detector is then lowered back into the tank and placed on the bottom of the tank.
In other words, depending on the needs and desires of the user, the cited leak detector is deployed to accomplish the above steps as indicated in Miller above. In short, the user’s manipulation of Miller’s water detection embodiment is an example of “controlled water entry,” as the user is controlling the use of the water detection device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Miller the feature of deploying the cited leak detector in a similar manner as the claimed invention. Unless “wherein the side slots of the housing are configured to allow water to enter the housing only during backup conditions, maintaining the sensor assembly in a dry state under normal environmental circumstances,” adding a requirement for carrying out the invention as claimed above isn’t considered patentable subject matter if the user controls the use of the invention in a manner as suggested in the cited art.
On claim 2, Miller cites:
The system of claim 1, wherein the slanted bar is segmented into six detection zones, each zone indicating change in the water level in real time.
Col. 1, lines 61-67 and col. 2, lines 1-6
According to the teachings of the present invention, there is provided a method for determining the presence of a leak in an above ground tank of liquid hydrocarbons having a lower specific gravity and a lower electrical or thermal conductivity than water, said method comprising the steps of: determining the level of water in said tank; sensing changes in the level of water in the tank over time by sensing changes in conductivity at points along a line extending across an interface between the liquid hydrocarbon and the water in the tank; and, determining the amount and rate of leakage relative to the capacity of the tank and the change in the level of the water in the tank over a selected time period.
(Figure 7 discloses sensors 201-224, which is more than six sensors).
On claim 6, Miller cites except as underlined:
The system of claim 1, wherein the side slots of the housing are configured to allow water to enter the housing only during backup conditions, maintaining the sensor assembly in a dry state under normal environmental circumstances.
Miller, col. 2, lines 7-12, discloses:
In practicing the method, prior to making a test for leaks, water is introduced into the tank to form a water layer on the bottom of the tank. Typically, this is accomplished the night before testing to allow equilibrium in the water layer and water-liquid interface to take place.
and col 2, lines 21-37, discloses:
The leak detector is lifted out of the tank and the position of the water level line is noted. Then the sensor assembly comprising an array of bare uninsulated conductor ends or thermal sensors which are arranged in a line, is positioned in the area of the water level with the line of the array extending at an angle to the horizontal and across or intersecting the plane containing the water level line.
and col. 2, lines 29-30 discloses:
The leak detector is then lowered back into the tank and placed on the bottom of the tank.
In other words, depending on the needs and desires of the user, the cited leak detector is deployed to accomplish the above steps as indicated in Miller above.
Miller doesn’t disclose the excepted claim limitations. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Miller the feature of deploying the cited leak detector in a similar manner as the claimed invention. Unless “wherein the side slots of the housing are configured to allow water to enter the housing only during backup conditions, maintaining the sensor assembly in a dry state under normal environmental circumstances,” adding a requirement for carrying out the invention as claimed above isn’t considered patentable subject matter if the user controls the use of the invention in a similar manner as suggested in the cited art.
On claim 8, Miller cites:
A method for detecting water backup, comprising: placing a sensor assembly on a slanted bar with a multi-zone detection surface within a housing; allowing water to enter through side slots of the housing; and triggering zone-specific alerts as water reaches corresponding detection levels.
See the rejection of claim 1 which discloses the same subject atter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 9, Miller cites: The method of claim 8, wherein each of the sensor of the sensor assembly triggers alert at different water accumulation levels in real time.
Miller cites:
Col. 1, lines 51-567, col. 2, lines 1-6, and figure 7 (as the water contacts each respective contacts at 201 to 224)
According to the teachings of the present invention, there is provided a method for determining the presence of a leak in an above ground tank of liquid hydrocarbons having a lower specific gravity and a lower electrical or thermal conductivity than water, said method comprising the steps of: determining the level of water in said tank; sensing changes in the level of water in the tank over time by sensing changes in conductivity at points along a line extending across an interface between the liquid hydrocarbon and the water in the tank; and, determining the amount and rate of leakage relative to the capacity of the tank and the change in the level of the water in the tank over a selected time period.
Claims 3-5, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al., U.S. 4,736,622 in view of Anderson et al., U.S. 2014/0166596.
On claim 3, Miller cites except as underlined:
The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor assembly has six sensors corresponding to six detection zones, triggering zone-specific alerts as water reaches corresponding detection levels.
As previously disclosed, Miller:
Col. 1, lines 61-67 and col. 2, lines 1-6
According to the teachings of the present invention, there is provided a method for determining the presence of a leak in an above ground tank of liquid hydrocarbons having a lower specific gravity and a lower electrical or thermal conductivity than water, said method comprising the steps of: determining the level of water in said tank; sensing changes in the level of water in the tank over time by sensing changes in conductivity at points along a line extending across an interface between the liquid hydrocarbon and the water in the tank; and, determining the amount and rate of leakage relative to the capacity of the tank and the change in the level of the water in the tank over a selected time period.
Miller doesn’t disclose specific alerts as the water reasons corresponding detection levels.
In the same art of fuel management systems, Anderson discloses:
[0094] The method may include indicating if a water level exceeds a threshold level in a fuel-water separator via a sensor operably disposed in the fuel-water separator; stopping the engine in response to the water level exceeding the threshold level in the fuel-water separator; and outputting a second notification in response to the sensor operably disposed in the fuel-water separator indicating the water level exceeds the threshold level in the fuel-water separator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s water level detection system using the features disclosed in Anderson such that the claimed invention is realized. Anderson discloses a known water level alarm system used to determine if water level reaches a threshold for a fuel supply. One of ordinary skill would have incorporated this feature into Miller to prevent damage to equipment.
On claim 4, Miller cites except as underlined:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a power source, configured to provide power to the sensor assembly and a wireless communication network.
Miller discloses
Col. 7, lines 50-52 and figure 10, Each of the circuits 30 can be energized by batteries so that the leak detector has a self-contained power supply.
However, Miller doesn’t disclose a communications means to transmit data regarding the rate of leakage in the previously disclosed tank 10.
In the same art of water level determination, Anderson, figure 1, discloses
[0027] As non-limiting examples, the information may be transmitted by radio 142 over a wireless network or an electrical cable connecting each locomotive. In this manner, a locomotive may communicate information such as engine and/or vehicle operating conditions to one or more other locomotives.
[0046] At 490, maintenance data including water sensor data may be transmitted via a radio. For example, a maintenance message may be transmitted via radio 142 in response to separator water sensor 270 indicating water exceeds the threshold level in fuel-water separator 220.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s water level system using the features outlined in Anderson such that the claimed invention is realized. Anderson discloses a radio to inform others of the status of its water level contamination. One of ordinary skill would have provided the radio to Miller to apprise others of the status of the water level in a tank.
On claim 5, Miller and Anderson cites except as underlined:
The system of claim 4, wherein the power source is a portable battery unit, and the portable battery unit is configured for modular deployment and automated real-time monitoring and alerting.
As disclosed in the rejection of claim 4, Anderson disclosed an embodiment in which batteries were used in conjunction with radio to inform others of the water fuel contamination.
However, neither Miller nor Anderson discloses the portable battery unit being configured for “modular deployment.” Yet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Miller and Anderson the ability for the portable battery unit to be in a “modular deployment” status.
Per Merrian-Webster’s Online Dictionary, the term “modular” means
“2 : constructed with standardized units or dimensions for flexibility and variety in use modular furniture.” Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would have provided batteries meeting the claimed invention of being “modular deployable.” Having standard batteries with standardized units makes logistical support for a known battery type easier to keep on inventory.
Regarding the excepted: “automated real-time monitoring and alerting,” Anderson discloses
[0046] At 490, maintenance data including water sensor data may be transmitted via a radio. For example, a maintenance message may be transmitted via radio 142 in response to separator water sensor 270 indicating water exceeds the threshold level in fuel-water separator 220.
However, neither Miller nor Anderson discloses “automated real-time monitoring and alerting.” However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Miller and Anderson the feature of having “automated real-time monitoring and alerting” to inform others of the water intrusion issue disclosed in Anderson such that the excepted claimed limitations are realize. Having “automated real-time monitoring and alerting” not only relieves a reporting body the issue of manually reporting a problem but also, having the reported issue being done in real-time means the information being transmitted is up to date and not stale information.
On claim 7, Miller and Anderson cites:
The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor assembly is integrated with a wireless communication network, enabling remote transmission of water level data to a monitoring system. See the rejection of claim 4 citing Anderson:
[0027] and figure 1 As non-limiting examples, the information may be transmitted by radio 142 over a wireless network or an electrical cable connecting each locomotive. In this manner, a locomotive may communicate information such as engine and/or vehicle operating conditions to one or more other locomotives.
On claim 10, Miller and Anderson cites:
The method of claim 8, further comprising enabling remote transmission of water level data using a wireless communication network, wherein the sensor assembly is integrated with the wireless communication network. See the rejection of claim 4 citing Anderson, which discloses the same subject matter and is rejected for the same reasons. The claimed “remote transmission of water level data using a wireless communications network” is met when radio 142 sends information to a distant station.
[0046] Thus, engine 106 may be protected from undesirable effects of combusting fuel mixed with water. At 490, maintenance data including water sensor data may be transmitted via a radio. For example, a maintenance message may be transmitted via radio 142 in response to separator water sensor 270 indicating water exceeds the threshold level in fuel-water separator 220.
On claim 11, Miller cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 8, further comprising configuring a power source to provide power to the sensor assembly and a wireless communication network.
Miller discloses
Col. 7, lines 50-52 and figure 10, Each of the circuits 30 can be energized by batteries so that the leak detector has a self-contained power supply.
However, Miller doesn’t disclose a communications means to transmit data regarding the rate of leakage in the previously disclosed tank 10.
In the same art of water level determination, Anderson, figure 1, discloses
[0027] As non-limiting examples, the information may be transmitted by radio 142 over a wireless network or an electrical cable connecting each locomotive. In this manner, a locomotive may communicate information such as engine and/or vehicle operating conditions to one or more other locomotives.
[0046] At 490, maintenance data including water sensor data may be transmitted via a radio. For example, a maintenance message may be transmitted via radio 142 in response to separator water sensor 270 indicating water exceeds the threshold level in fuel-water separator 220.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miller’s water level system using the features outlined in Anderson such that the claimed invention is realized. Anderson discloses a radio to inform others of the status of its water level contamination. One of ordinary skill would have provided the radio to Miller to apprise others of the status of the water level in a tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571)270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Zimmerman, can be reached at (571) 272-3059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application lnformation Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAlR only. For more information about the PAlR system, see http:/lpair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAlR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-91 99 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAL J EUSTAQUIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights