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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Grover (US 2018/0010322) discloses that the toilet system utilizes a capacitance sensor monitoring a sump and a controller configured to open a valve and flow water into the bowl upon detecting an ‘empty sump’ capacitance level. Specifically, Grover discloses flowing water into the bowl upon detecting a ‘low water’ level in order to maintain a water seal in the sump/bowl (Para. 00074, 0092). Grover also discloses transitioning a rim valve from a first open position to a second closed position based upon detection of fluid level in the toilet bowl by the sensor (Para. 0091, 0104, Fig. 11D – the controller is configured to move a water source valve from an open/first position to a closed/second position upon detecting a ‘high’ level).
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, 12, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0010322 (Grover).
Regarding claim 1, Grover discloses a control system for a toilet including a sump and a bowl (annotated figure below), the control system comprising:
a capacitance (Para. 0059) sensor (100/228/510/1102) directly coupled to a sump of the toilet (Para. 0021, 0031, 0057, 0085, 0097- outer surface, base/bottom of bowl; Fig. 2, 11a-11c; annotated figure below) and configured to detect a water level in the sump of the toilet (Para. 0084-0087, 0104-0105);
PNG
media_image1.png
491
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a controller (110/210/540) configured to cause a rim valve (water valves 116/230 are flush valves supplying flush water to the toilet and Fig. 6-7 illustrate that the toilet has a rim channel and rim nozzles/jets) to transition from a first position to a second position in response to the water level in the sump of the toilet detected by the capacitance sensor (Para. 0091, 0104, Fig. 11D – the controller is configured to move a water source valve from an open/first position to a closed/second position upon detecting a ‘high’ level);
PNG
media_image2.png
475
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the controller is configured to detect a first capacitance value when a first amount of water is in the sump and a second capacitance value when second amount of water is in the sump, wherein the control system is configured to cause the rim valve to open and release water into the bowl in response to the sensor detecting the second capacitance value (Para. 0074, 0092 – The controller configured to detect a low water level and activate a valve to release water into the bowl. A ‘low’ water level is compared to a ‘normal’ water level and as such at least two capacitance values/measurements are being compared with the action of flowing water being caused by the second ‘low’ capacitance value).
Regarding claim 12, Grover discloses a metho for operation of a toilet including a sump and a bowl (annotated figure below), the method comprising:
detecting, at a capacitance sensor (100/228/510/1102; Para. 0059) directly coupled to the sump (Para. 0021, 0031, 0057, 0085, 0097- outer surface, base/bottom of bowl; Fig. 2, 11a-11c; annotated figure below), a water level in the sump of the toilet (Fig. 3); and
PNG
media_image1.png
491
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
generating, at a controller, an instruction to cause a rim valve to transition from a closed position to an open position in response to the water level in the sump of the toilet detected by the capacitance sensor (Para. 0074, 0092 – The controller configured to detect a low water level and activate a valve to release water into the bowl. A ‘low’ water level is compared to a ‘normal’ water level and as such at least two capacitance values/measurements are being compared with the action of flowing water being caused by the second ‘low’ capacitance value).
Regarding claim 21, Grover discloses a toilet comprising:
a sump (annotated figure below, lowest point of toilet beneath the owl 1104 and before the trap/outlet);
a toilet bowl (1104, annotated figure below) coupled to the sump;
PNG
media_image1.png
491
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a capacitance (Para. 0059) sensor (100/228/510/1102) directly coupled to a sump of the toilet (Para. 0021, 0031, 0057, 0085, 0097- outer surface, base/bottom of bowl; Fig. 2, 11a-11c; annotated figure above) and configured to detect a water level in the sump of the toilet (Para. 0084-0087, 0104-0105);
a controller (110/210/540) configured to cause a rim valve (Annotated figure below, water valves 116/230 are flush valves supplying flush water to the toilet and Fig. 6-7 illustrate that the toilet has a rim channel and rim nozzles/jets) to transition from an open position to a closed position in response to the water level in the sump of the toilet detected by the sensor (Para. 0091, 0104, Fig. 11D – the controller is configured to move a water source valve from an open/first position to a closed/second position upon detecting a ‘high’ level);
PNG
media_image2.png
475
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the controller is configured to detect a first capacitance value when a first amount of water is in the sump and a second capacitance value when second amount of water is in the sump, wherein the control system is configured to cause the rim valve to open and release water into the bowl in response to the sensor detecting the second capacitance value (Para. 0074, 0092 – The controller configured to detect a low water level and activate a valve to release water into the bowl. A ‘low’ water level is compared to a ‘normal’ water level and as such at least two capacitance values/measurements are being compared with the action of flowing water being caused by the second ‘low’ capacitance value).
Regarding claim 27, Grover discloses a method of generating an instruction to cause the rim valve to transition from the second closed position to the first open position when the sensor detects no presence of water at the sump (Para. 0074, 0092 – system configured to open water supply valves and flow water through the rim to the bowl upon detecting in sufficient water to form a seal).
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.
Claims 22-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover in view of US 2006/0096017 (Yamasaki).
Regarding claim 22, Grover discloses that the controller communicates with the sensor to receive signals and control a flush valve as previously discussed. Grover further discloses that the baseline ‘normal’ water level/status can be established by the controller operating the sensor during an ‘initial’ toilet bowl state (Para. 0063) but does not explicitly state that the controller is configured to perform a calibration routine with the sensor.
Yamasaki teaches a toilet control system comprising a controller (420) and a water level sensor (418) which is part of the flush cycle control system. Yamasaki further teaches that the controller is configured to perform a calibration routine for the water level sensor automatically or as a result of user instruction (Para. 0268-0269) to prevent errors/faults in/with the sensor from impacting operation of the controller/system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller to be capable of performing a calibration routine for the sensor, as taught by Yamasaki, so as to ensure continued proper operation of the flush system, facilitate the flush system adapting to changing conditions after installation and/or to adapt to different toilet/set up characteristics.
Regarding claim 23, Grover in view of Yamasaki teaches a toilet system comprising a sensor monitoring water levels in the sump and a controller configured to calibrate said sensor as previously discussed.
Grover further states that the sensor is a capacitance sensor which detects different water levels and conditions in the sump and toilet bowl by comparing changes in capacitance (Para. 0059 - calculating different values for different levels/statuses) and communicates with the controller with the different water levels (including ‘normal’ levels and ‘low’ levels) and conditions being identified through different capacitances and resulting in different actions such as opening or closing a flush valve (Para. 0059) (Figs. 2, 3, 11A-11D; 0018, 0027-0028, 0066-0071, 0085, 0092). Grover specifically states that the controller and sensors are configured to detect a water level deemed too low for maintaining a water seal (Para. 0074, 0092)
As such Grover in view of Yamasaki teaches a toilet system wherein the controller is configured to perform a calibration routine on a capacitance sensor coupled to a toilet sump such that the controller is configured to calculate a first capacitance value for a pre-flush (‘normal’) water level and a second capacitance for an empty bowl when a flush cycle is completed (the capacitance value would be different than a normal water level and Grover establishes that its systems is configured to monitors before, during and after a flush process).
Regarding claim 24, as previously discussed Grover states that the controller is configured to cause the rim valve to move from a first open position to a second closed position based upon a detected water level in the sump. Grover also states that the rim valve returns to the first open position when the sensor detects no presence of water at the sump (Para. 0074, 0092 – Sensor determines water level, such as empty, and the valve is opened to provide sufficient water to restore seal which requires an established ‘normal’ level and the sensor determining the current level such as no water).
Regarding claim 25, Grover discloses a method of operating a toilet comprising monitoring water levels in a sump with a sensor that sends signals to a controller which operates a valve based on the sensor detecting different water levels as previously discussed. Grover further discloses that the baseline ‘normal’ water level/status can be established by the controller operating the sensor during an ‘initial’ toilet bowl state (Para. 0063) but does not explicitly disclose a method of calibrating the sensor.
Yamasaki teaches a method of controlling a flush cycle of a toilet comprising providing a controller (420) and a water level sensor (418). Yamasaki further teaches a method step of performing a calibration routine for the water level sensor automatically or as a result of user instruction (Para. 0268-0269) to prevent errors/faults in/with the sensor from impacting operation of the controller/system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a calibration of the sensor, as taught by Yamasaki, so as to ensure continued proper operation of the flush system, facilitate the flush system adapting to changing conditions after installation and/or to adapt to different toilet/set up characteristics.
Regarding claim 26, Grover in view of Yamasaki teaches a method of controlling a toilet comprising calibrating the sensor monitoring water levels in the sump as previously discussed. Grover further states that the sensor is a capacitance sensor which detects different water levels and conditions in the sump and toilet bowl and communicates with the controller with the different water levels and conditions being identified through different capacitances (Para. 0059) (Figs. 2, 3, 11A-11D; 0018, 0027-0028, 0066-0071, 0085, 0092).
As such Grover in view of Yamasaki teaches a method of performing a calibration routine on a capacitance sensor coupled to a toilet sump such that as a result of the calibration the sensor and controller accurately detect differing water levels and conditions in the sump through detecting/measuring different capacitance levels which the controller then addresses by controlling a flush valve.
Regarding claim 28, Grover discloses that the controller communicates with the sensor to receive signals and control a flush valve as previously discussed. Grover further discloses that the baseline ‘normal’ water level/status can be established by the controller operating the sensor during an ‘initial’ toilet bowl state (Para. 0063) but does not explicitly state that the controller is configured to perform a calibration routine with the sensor.
Yamasaki teaches a toilet control system comprising a controller (420) and a water level sensor (418) which is part of the flush cycle control system. Yamasaki further teaches that the controller is configured to perform a calibration routine for the water level sensor automatically or as a result of user instruction (Para. 0268-0269) to prevent errors/faults in/with the sensor from impacting operation of the controller/system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller to be capable of performing a calibration routine for the sensor, as taught by Yamasaki, so as to ensure continued proper operation of the flush system, facilitate the flush system adapting to changing conditions after installation and/or to adapt to different toilet/set up characteristics.
Regarding claim 29, Grover in view of Yamasaki teaches a toilet system comprising a sensor monitoring water levels in the sump and a controller configured to calibrate said sensor as previously discussed. Grover further states that the sensor is a capacitance sensor which detects different water levels and conditions in the sump and toilet bowl and communicates with the controller with the different water levels and conditions being identified through different capacitances (Para. 0059) (Figs. 2, 3, 11A-11D; 0018, 0027-0028, 0066-0071, 0074, 0085, 0092).
As such Grover in view of Yamasaki teaches a toilet system wherein the controller is configured to perform a calibration routine on a capacitance sensor coupled to a toilet sump such that as a result of the calibration the sensor and controller can accurately detect differing water levels and conditions in the sump which the controller then addresses by controlling a flush valve.
Regarding claim 30, as previously discussed Grover states that the controller is configured to cause the rim valve to move from a first open position to a second closed position based upon a detected water level in the sump. Grover also states that the rim valve returns to the first open position when the sensor detects no presence of water at the sump (Para. 0074, 0092 – Sensor determines water level, such as empty, and the valve is opened to provide sufficient water to restore seal which requires an established ‘normal’ level and the sensor determining the current level such as no water).
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 NICHOLAS A ROS whose telephone number is (571)270-3577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-6:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
/NICHOLAS A ROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights