DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are newly introduced prior to examination.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 8, 12 – 18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0119950, “Bishop,” in view of US 2018/0017459, “Banta.”
Regarding Claim 1: Bishop discloses a system (100) for remotely monitoring and controlling a sump pump (Figures 1 – 23; At least [0038]), the system comprising: a control system (106, 108) in communication with the sump pump and configured to regulate the sump pump (Figure 6; [0038], “BBU system 100 can include a power supply 102, a battery charger 104, a control system 106, sensor(s) 108, sump pump driver(s) 110, a backup sump pump 112, and an optional battery(s) 114. Each of these components work together to perform the functions of the BBU system 100”); a sensor chamber (244, 250) connected to the sump pump (Figure 11; [0089], “The pressure cup 244 can be attached to a wall of the sump pit 52, or to a PVC pipe 58 extending into the sump pit 52”) and in communication with the control system (via pressure tubes 238 and 236); a remote device in communication with the control system ([0107], “The software application can be operable with a smartphone, for example, or other smart device, to access the BBU system 100 to provide an indication of the BBU system's operational status.”); a wireless controller (124) in communication with the control system, the wireless controller configured to receive monitoring instructions and to transmit sump pump status data to the remote device data ([0049], “the control system 106 can also include a wireless controller 124 for transmitting and receiving data wirelessly for remote monitoring functionality […] The wireless controller 124 can include an RF transmitter such as an antenna for receiving signals and transmitting data to a remote device.”; [0106], “BBU system 100 can include a remote monitoring and/or test feature including the wireless controller 124”; [0107], “The software application can be operable with a smartphone, for example, or other smart device, to access the BBU system 100 to provide an indication of the BBU system's operational status.”); and a notification system designed to generate and transmit an alert to the remote device when the measured water level value exceeds a water level set point value ([0106], “[0106] In some embodiments, the BBU system 100 can include a remote monitoring and/or test feature including the wireless controller 124. […] The pulse width of a PWM (pulse width modulator) 270 (as shown in FIG. 12) can be monitored, and based on the pulse width, multiple situations for alarms can be created. […] These pulse width ranges can be used to trigger a local and/or remote alarm and/or a fault indication, for example.”; At least [0077], [0086], [0095], [0098], [0104], and [0105] further discuss the actuation of a high water alarm); however, Bishop fails to explicitly disclose that the control system can toggle an operating signal to the sump pump, Bishop is further silent as to wherein a user configures the water level set point value in the remote device.
Banta teaches a sump pump control and monitoring system (Figure 2), similar in design an function to that of Bishop, comprising a control system (200) which utilizes wireless communication links (209) to communicate with a server (203) which is accessible by a remote device ([0012], “device may include a database and/or may be connected to wireless services such as data logging and alert notification via text message, email, telephone call, smartphone alert, etc.”), at least one water level sensor (210) ([0023], “sump pump tracking device 200 includes a pressure sensor 210 in communication with a processor 212 within a housing 214. A second end 216 of the tube 204 connects to a first port 218 of the pressure sensor 210”; [0024]), wherein the water level sensor is used to actuate an alarm condition based on a water level set point by toggling an operating signal to the sump pump ([0027]) and wherein a user configures a water level set point value in the remote device ([0027], “The user may also program one or more alarm threshold elevations via the web-based SaaS platform or the mobile application. The server 203 will compare the pressure sensor readings with pre-programmed alarm threshold elevation and trigger an alarm when the water level in the sump pit 202 exceeds an alarm threshold elevation. The user may specify one or more alarm threshold elevations that correspond to different levels of emergency. For example, first, second, and third alarm threshold elevations may correspond to a low-level warning, a mid-level warning, and a high alert.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the used configurable threshold set point values taught by Banta into the control system of Bishop with the predicted results that such an arrangement will allow for more discrete control by a user and the ability to set multiple threshold values (Banta, [0027], “For example, first, second, and third alarm threshold elevations may correspond to a low-level warning, a mid-level warning, and a high alert.”).
Once combined with Banta, Bishop further renders obvious the arrangement wherein the operating signal is an increase pump speed signal or a decrease pump speed signal, each of the increase pump speed signal and the decrease pump speed signal associated with operating the sump pump in response to a water fill time exceeding a threshold value ([0090] “The pressure transducer 212 can measure the rate of water entering the sump pit 52 and then provide an output to a voltage regulator 264 (as shown in FIG. 12) that can turn the backup sump pump 112 at a predetermined speed at or a slightly higher speed than what is required to keep up with the water inflow;” and at least [0091] – [0092]).
Regarding Claim 2: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the system of claim 1; Bishop further discloses wherein the remote device is a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop, or an Internet-enabled device ([0107], “The software application can be operable with a smartphone, for example, or other smart device, to access the BBU system 100 to provide an indication of the BBU system's operational status.”).
Regarding Claim 3: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the system of claim 1; Bishop further discloses wherein the remote device is further configured to monitor a plurality of water level attributes ([0055], “control system 106 can still determine how fast the water level is rising or falling”; The control system is disclosed as monitoring at least falling and rising water levels, two water level attributes (noted to be similarly disclosed by the instant invention in at least [0064]) and the remote device is capable of monitoring such information.)
Regarding Claim 4: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the system of claim 1; Bishop further discloses wherein the sensor chamber detects the measured water level in a sump pit (52) ([0058], “a pressure sensor 126 to be positioned in a sump pit 52”).
Regarding Claim 5: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the system of claim 1; Bishop further discloses wherein the notification system is further configured to generate and transmit the alert to the remote device when the system detects one or more of a locked rotor ([0106], “If the pulse width is at or near a maximum, the backup sump pump 112 is likely drawing high current, which can be an indication that there is a dead short or a blocked rotor, for example.”), an overcurrent, a dry run condition, a clogged discharge line, a high water alarm, a pump failure, a pump malfunction, an above ground leak, or an underground leak.
Regarding Claim 6: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the system of claim 1; Bishop further discloses wherein the sump pump is regulated based on a measured pressure value (via pressure sensor 126; [0050], “sensors 108 can detect water level both discretely and with quantitative output. In some embodiments, the sensors 108 can include the pressure sensor 126 (as shown in FIGS. 4, 8, 10, 11 and 18-21) and a contact sensor 128, as shown in FIGS. 18 and 21, for example”) and a measured water level value (via contact sensor 128, [0050], “sensors 108 can detect water level both discretely and with quantitative output. In some embodiments, the sensors 108 can include the pressure sensor 126 (as shown in FIGS. 4, 8, 10, 11 and 18-21) and a contact sensor 128, as shown in FIGS. 18 and 21, for example;” or through the use of a float switch as described in at least [0034]).
Regarding Claim 7: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the system of claim 1; Bishop further discloses the sensor chamber further comprising: a primary sensor (126) designed to measure a current pressure value ([0083], “as a water level in the sump pit rises above the open bottom 248, the pressure cup 244 becomes a sealed pressure vessel with an inner air space 250 defining the pressure inside the pressure cup 244 as generally proportional to the depth of water inside the sump pit 52”); and a secondary sensor (258) designed to measure a current water level value ([0086], “a pair of conductive contacts 258, as shown in FIG. 18. The conductive contacts 258 can serve as the contact sensor 128, so that the control circuitry 152 monitoring the contacts 258 can detect that the fluid level has reached the contacts 258”).
Regarding Claim 8: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the system of claim 7; Bishop further discloses wherein the sensor chamber determines a water fill time value by the measured pressure value using the primary sensor and the measured water level value using the secondary sensor ([0055], “control system 106 can still determine how fast the water level is rising or falling”; The control system is disclosed as being capable of determining a water level rise and fall rate such that the control system would be capable of being configured to determine a water fill time of the sump, or to a discrete fill line threshold).
Regarding Claim 12: Bishop discloses a method of monitoring and controlling a sump pump (Figures 1 – 23; At least [0038]), the method comprising the steps of: providing a water level and a pressure level to a controller (Figure 6; [0038], “BBU system 100 can include a power supply 102, a battery charger 104, a control system 106, sensor(s) 108, sump pump driver(s) 110, a backup sump pump 112, and an optional battery(s) 114. Each of these components work together to perform the functions of the BBU system 100”), the controller operating the sump pump (As discussed in at least [0038]); determining a water fill time ([0055], “control system 106 can still determine how fast the water level is rising or falling”; The control system is disclosed as being capable of determining a water level rise and fall rate such that the control system would be capable of being configured to determine a water fill time of the sump, or to a discrete fill line threshold); comparing the water fill time to a threshold value ([0090] “The pressure transducer 212 can measure the rate of water entering the sump pit 52 and then provide an output to a voltage regulator 264 (as shown in FIG. 12) that can turn the backup sump pump 112 at a predetermined speed at or a slightly higher speed than what is required to keep up with the water inflow;” and at least [0091] – [0092]); however, Bishop fails to explicitly disclose toggling an operating signal to the sump pump, wherein the operating signal is an increase pump speed signal or a decrease pump speed signal, each of the increase pump speed signal and the decrease pump speed signal associated with operating the sump pump in response to the water fill time exceeding a threshold value; generating a notification in response to the toggling step; and transmitting the notification to a remote device.
Banta teaches a sump pump control and monitoring system (Figure 2), similar in design an function to that of Bishop, comprising a control system (200) which utilizes wireless communication links (209) to communicate with a server (203) which is accessible by a remote device ([0012], “device may include a database and/or may be connected to wireless services such as data logging and alert notification via text message, email, telephone call, smartphone alert, etc.”), at least one water level sensor (210) ([0023], “sump pump tracking device 200 includes a pressure sensor 210 in communication with a processor 212 within a housing 214. A second end 216 of the tube 204 connects to a first port 218 of the pressure sensor 210”; [0024]), wherein the water level sensor is used to actuate an alarm condition based on a water level set point by toggling an operating signal to the sump pump ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the used configurable threshold set point values taught by Banta into the control system of Bishop with the predicted results that such an arrangement will allow for more discrete control by a user and the ability to set multiple threshold values (Banta, [0027], “For example, first, second, and third alarm threshold elevations may correspond to a low-level warning, a mid-level warning, and a high alert.”).
Once combined with Banta, Bishop further renders obvious the arrangement wherein the operating signal is an increase pump speed signal or a decrease pump speed signal, each of the increase pump speed signal and the decrease pump speed signal associated with operating the sump pump in response to a water fill time exceeding a threshold value ([0090] “The pressure transducer 212 can measure the rate of water entering the sump pit 52 and then provide an output to a voltage regulator 264 (as shown in FIG. 12) that can turn the backup sump pump 112 at a predetermined speed at or a slightly higher speed than what is required to keep up with the water inflow;” and at least [0091] – [0092]), and generating a notification in response to the toggling step; and transmitting the notification to a remote device ([0106], “[0106] In some embodiments, the BBU system 100 can include a remote monitoring and/or test feature including the wireless controller 124. […] The pulse width of a PWM (pulse width modulator) 270 (as shown in FIG. 12) can be monitored, and based on the pulse width, multiple situations for alarms can be created. […] These pulse width ranges can be used to trigger a local and/or remote alarm and/or a fault indication, for example.”; At least [0077], [0086], [0095], [0098], [0104], and [0105] further discuss the actuation of a high water alarm; [0049], “the control system 106 can also include a wireless controller 124 for transmitting and receiving data wirelessly for remote monitoring functionality […] The wireless controller 124 can include an RF transmitter such as an antenna for receiving signals and transmitting data to a remote device.”; [0106], “BBU system 100 can include a remote monitoring and/or test feature including the wireless controller 124”; [0107], “The software application can be operable with a smartphone, for example, or other smart device, to access the BBU system 100 to provide an indication of the BBU system's operational status.”).
Regarding Claim 13: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the method of claim 12; Bishop further discloses detecting a change in the water level using a sensor chamber (244, 250).
Regarding Claim 14: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the method of claim 13; Bishop further discloses wherein the sensor chamber is connected to the sump pump (Figure 11; [0089], “The pressure cup 244 can be attached to a wall of the sump pit 52, or to a PVC pipe 58 extending into the sump pit 52”) and is in communication with the controller (via pressure tubes 238 and 236).
Regarding Claim 15: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the method of claim 13; Bishop further discloses wherein the change in water level is detected using the sensor chamber (At least [0044] and Figures 4, 12, and 18 – 20; [0055], “control system 106 can still determine how fast the water level is rising or falling”).
Regarding Claim 16: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the method of claim 12; Bishop further discloses detecting the water level via a primary sensor (via contact sensor 128, [0050], “sensors 108 can detect water level both discretely and with quantitative output. In some embodiments, the sensors 108 can include the pressure sensor 126 (as shown in FIGS. 4, 8, 10, 11 and 18-21) and a contact sensor 128, as shown in FIGS. 18 and 21, for example;” or through the use of a float switch as described in at least [0034]); and detecting the pressure level via a secondary sensor (via pressure sensor 126; [0050], “sensors 108 can detect water level both discretely and with quantitative output. In some embodiments, the sensors 108 can include the pressure sensor 126 (as shown in FIGS. 4, 8, 10, 11 and 18-21) and a contact sensor 128, as shown in FIGS. 18 and 21, for example”).
Regarding Claim 17: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the method of claim 16; Bishop further discloses wherein a sensor chamber includes the primary sensor (126) and the secondary sensor (258) ([0083], “as a water level in the sump pit rises above the open bottom 248, the pressure cup 244 becomes a sealed pressure vessel with an inner air space 250 defining the pressure inside the pressure cup 244 as generally proportional to the depth of water inside the sump pit 52;” [0086], “a pair of conductive contacts 258, as shown in FIG. 18. The conductive contacts 258 can serve as the contact sensor 128, so that the control circuitry 152 monitoring the contacts 258 can detect that the fluid level has reached the contacts 258”).
Regarding Claim 18: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the method of claim 16; Bishop further discloses wherein the water fill time is determined by the sensor chamber and is based on the detected water level and the detected pressure level ([0055], “control system 106 can still determine how fast the water level is rising or falling”; The control system is disclosed as being capable of determining a water level rise and fall rate such that the control system would be capable of being configured to determine a water fill time of the sump, or to a discrete fill line threshold).
Regarding Claim 20: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the method of claim 12; Bishop further discloses monitoring the sump pump via a printed circuit board (At least 152 as discussed in at least [0082]) positioned within a housing (134) of the controller that is electrically coupled to a wireless controller (124).
Claims 9, and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0119950, “Bishop,” in view of US 2018/0017459, “Banta,” and US 2008/0229819, “Mayleben.”
Regarding Claim 9: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the system of claim 1; Bishop further discloses wherein the primary sensor is a pressure sensor ([0085]); however, Bishop discloses the secondary sensor as a conductive type sensor ([0098], The sensors are either electrically open or closed based on their contact with the conducive water in the pit) and as such fails to explicitly disclose wherein the secondary sensor is a capacitive sensor.
Mayleben teaches a sump pump system (Figures 1 – 17) comprising a controller (42) operatively coupled to a sump pump (12), in a similar manner to that of Bishop, the controller coupled with a water level sensor (14) and wherein the water level sensor is a capacitive sensor ([0041], “a capacitive sensor 54”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted the conductive sensor arrangement of Bishop with the capacitive sensor arrangement of Mayleben with the predicted results that such a change in sensor will work equally well at sensing a water level in the sump pump system. It is noted that such a change is viewed as a simple substitution of one known element for that of another. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Regarding Claim 10: Bishop, in view of Banta, and Mayleben, teaches the system of claim 9; Bishop further discloses wherein the primary sensor includes a pressure transducer (212) attached to the sensor chamber to detect the measured pressure (At least [0044] and Figures 4, 12, and 18 – 20), the pressure transducer configured to detect a change in water level that indicates whether the water level is rising or falling ([0055], “control system 106 can still determine how fast the water level is rising or falling”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0119950, “Bishop,” in view of US 2018/0017459, “Banta,” US 2008/0229819, “Mayleben,” and US 2021/0235964, “AlHaffar.”
Regarding Claim 11: Bishop, in view of Banta, and Mayleben, teaches the system of claim 10; however, Bishop fails to explicitly disclose wherein the capacitive sensor is affixed adjacent to the pressure transducer of the sensor chamber. Bishop teaches locating the pressure transducer exterior to the sump and coupled to the sensor chamber through the use of a pressure tube as shown in at least Figure 11.
AlHaffar teaches a water level sensor and detection system (170) placed in a sump (Figure 4) wherein the water level sensor comprises an air chamber (178) and a pressure sensor (172) ([0035] – [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the placement of the pressure transducer of Bishop such that it would be located in or on the sensor chamber, as taught by AlHaffar, with the predicted results that placing the sensor local to the sensing chamber will eliminate the need for the pressure tubing and that such a modification is interpreted as a simple rearrangement of parts in view of the teachings of AlHaffar since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Once combined, Bishop in view of AlHaffar makes obvious wherein the capacitive sensor is affixed adjacent to the pressure transducer of the sensor chamber.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0119950, “Bishop,” in view of US 2018/0017459, “Banta,” and US 2020/0132068, “Rupp.”
Regarding Claim 19: Bishop, in view of Banta, teaches the method of claim 16; Bishop further discloses detecting a failure of the primary sensor via the secondary sensor ([0098], “The overflow contacts 258 serve as backup contacts in case of a pressure sensor 126 failure.”); however, Bishop does not explicitly disclose generating an alert in response to detecting the failure of the primary sensor; and transmitting the alert to the remote device.
Rupp teaches a sump pump monitoring and control system, similar in design to that of Bishop, and further teaches generating an alert in response to detecting the failure of the primary sensor ([0032], “The alarms may include alarms generated in response to a loss of power, the failure of a pump, the failure of a sensor, a high flow event, or an excessively high water level.”); and transmitting the alert to the remote device ([0032], “The enabled device 76 may be further configured to receive an alarm, via the internet (Wi-Fi) or a cellular network, generated by the plurality of microprocessors 14 and 16 of the sump pump system 10.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Bishop to generate and transmit and alert based on failure of the primary sensor, as taught by Rupp, with the predicted results that such a notification will be capable of alerting a user to the failure condition of the sensor.
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 BENJAMIN DOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0900 - 1700.
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.
/BENJAMIN DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2026.05.30
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 6/1/2026
Prosecution Insights