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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15, 17-19, and 28-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/18/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 2 of Claim 1, insert --computer implemented-- before “method”;
in line 3 of Claim 1, delete “the” before “plumbing” and insert --a--;
in line 10 of Claim 1, insert --the-- before “determining”;
in line 1 of Claims 5-13, delete “A” and insert --The--;
in line 2 of Claim 6, insert --the-- before “determining”;
in line 2 of Claim 7, insert --computer implemented-- before “method”;
in line 2 of Claim 8, insert --computer implemented-- before “method”;
in line 2 of Claim 11, insert --the-- before “monitoring”;
in line 2 of Claim 12,
insert --the-- before “applying”, and
delete “a” and insert --the--;
in line 4 of Claim 12, insert --,-- after “disinfection”;
in line 2 of Claim 13, insert --the-- before “performing”;
in line 3 of Claim 13, delete “,” after “disinfection” and insert --;--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 7, it is not clear whether “the plumbing fixture” in line 4 is attempting to point to “the plumbing fixture” as set forth in the parent claim 1 or to the “another plumbing fixture” as set forth in line 3 of the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the water supply" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected due to its dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) recite(s) a series of steps (i.e. monitoring, determining, analysing and determining a trend) that is directed to a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step of “in accordance with the determined risk, applying a countermeasure…to counteract biofilm formation” does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as it is merely applying a generic action (i.e. a nominal or token extra solution component of the claim) and is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the abstract idea/mental process to a particular technological environment. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “computer implement[ing]” of the claimed method is merely being recited as a tool to perform/execute the abstract idea and a step of “storing information…” is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by St. Louis (WO2019161334).
As to Claim 1, St. Louis (‘334) discloses a computer implemented (via 140) method for counteracting biofilm formation in a plumbing fixture (110-113, 135, 175, 179, 183) (see Figures 1-7), the computer implemented method comprising:
monitoring (via 115-119, 130, 140) a parameter relating to microbial presence within a plumbing fixture (110-113, 135, 175, 179, 183) (i.e. 310 and 320; 405 - see entire document, particularly Figures 3-4, pp. 3-6 [0019]-[0030], p. 7 [0032], p. 8 [0039] and [0041] – lines 1-4, p. 9 [0044]);
determining a level of risk related to biofilm formation based on the monitored parameter (i.e. steps 410, 415 – see Figure 4; see entire document, particularly Figures 4-5, p. 8 [0041], p. 9 [0045]-[0046], p. 10 [0047], pp. 10-11 [0050], p. 11 [0052] – lines 1-6, p. 12 [0055]);
in accordance with the determined level of risk (see entire document, particularly p. 11 [0053] – lines 4-5), applying a countermeasure (via 107, 140) to the plumbing fixture (110-113, 135, 175, 179, 183) in order to counteract biofilm formation (i.e. step(s) 315; 420; 540 - see entire document, particularly Figures 1-5, p. 8 [0040], p. 10 [0047], p. 11 [0053], p. 12 [0054]); and
storing information (via 140/215) related to any one or more of: the monitored parameter, the determined level of risk, and/or the countermeasure applied (i.e. 550 - see entire document, particularly Figures 2-3 and 5, p. 3 [0017], p. 7 [0033] and [0035]-[0036], p. 8 [0039] – last line and [0041], p. 9 [0045] - lines 1-5, p. 12 [0055]);
wherein the determining the level of risk comprises analyzing the stored information (see entire document, particularly Figures 4-5, p. 8 [0041] – lines 5-9, p. 9 [0044] – last 2 lines and [0045]-[0046]), and determining a trend in the stored information (i.e. 550 - see entire document, particularly Figure 5, p. 8 [0041] – lines 8-9, p. 9 [0045] – lines 3-5 and [0046], pp. 10-11 [0050], p. 12 [0055] – lines 4-9).
As to Claim 5, St. Louis (‘334) discloses that the computer implemented method further comprising a step of analyzing previously stored information to determine the countermeasure to apply to the plumbing fixture (110-113, 135, 175, 179, 183) (i.e. step(s) 410 and/or 415 - see entire document, particularly Figures 2-5 especially Figure 4, p. 9 [0045]-[0046], p. 12 [0055]).
As to Claim 6, St. Louis (‘334) discloses that the determining the level of risk comprises comparing the monitored parameter with a predetermined threshold (i.e. steps 410, 415 - see entire document, particularly Figure 4).
As to Claim 7, St. Louis (‘334) discloses that the computer implemented method further comprises receiving (via 702) a level of risk related to biofilm formation associated with another plumbing fixture (110-113, 135, 175, 179, 183) (via 710 or 711 or 712 - see entire document, particularly Figure 7, p. 13 [0060]); and
applying (via 702 and 705) a countermeasure to the plumbing fixture (110-113, 135, 175, 179, 183) (via 710 or 711 or 712 - see Figure 7) in accordance with the received level of risk (see entire document, particularly Figure 7, pp. 13-14 [0062]).
As to Claim 8, St. Louis (‘334) discloses that the computer implemented method further comprises receiving an instruction to apply a countermeasure to the plumbing fixture (110-113, 135, 175, 179, 183) (i.e. step 530 - see entire document, particularly Figure 5, p. 11 [0052] – lines 7-9); and
applying the countermeasure to the plumbing fixture (110-113, 135, 175, 179, 183) in accordance with the instruction (i.e. step 540 - see entire document, particularly Figure 5, p. 11 [0052]-[0053]).
As to Claim 11, St. Louis (‘334) discloses that the monitoring the parameter (via 115-119) comprises monitoring any one or more of: a hot water temperature, a cold water temperature, a water flow rate, and/or a biofilm level (see entire document, particularly pp. 5-6 [0023]-[0028], p. 6 [0030]).
As to Claim 12, St. Louis (‘334) discloses that the applying the countermeasure comprises any one or more of: flushing water through the plumbing fixture (110-113, 135, 175, 179, 183) (see entire document, particularly pp. 13-14 [0062]) and performing a disinfection (via 107 - see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0021] – 2nd and 3rd lines from the bottom, p. 8 [0040]).
As to Claim 13, St. Louis (‘334) discloses that the performing the disinfection may comprise any one or more of: performing a chemical disinfection (via 107 - see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0021] – 2nd line from the bottom, p. 8 [0040]) and/or performing ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection (via 107 - see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0021] – 3rd line from the bottom).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St. Louis (WO2019161334) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinson (20160097106).
St. Louis (‘334) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
St. Louis (‘334) does not appear to specifically teach that the computer implemented method further comprises a step of adjusting a monitoring frequency or that the monitoring frequency is determined according to the determined level of risk.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a monitoring frequency determined according to a determined level of risk in a method of identifying/monitoring and treating an environment within a conduit. Robinson (‘106) discloses a method (100) of identifying/monitoring and counteracting biofilm formation in a conduit such as plumbing (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-7, p. 3 [0026], p. 4 [0038] and [0040]-[0041], p. 5 [0047]), the method comprising:
monitoring (e.x. via 602) a parameter relating to microbial presence (512, 514, 516; 522, 524, 524; 608, 610) within a conduit such as a plumbing fixture (502; 604, 606) (i.e. steps 106, 108, 110 - see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 3 [0026], p. 5 [0047]-[0049], p. 6 [0054], p. 12 [0096]);
determining a level of risk related to biofilm formation based on the monitored parameter (i.e. steps 108 and 110 - see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 6 [0054] – last 15 lines, p. 12 [0096]);
in accordance with the determined level of risk, applying a countermeasure to the conduit/plumbing fixture in order to counteract biofilm formation (i.e. step(s) 112, 114, 116 - see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 2 [0011]-[0015], p. 4 [0037], p. 5 [0045]);
storing information (via 700, 706, 712) related to any one or more of: the monitored parameter, the determined level of risk, and/or the countermeasure applied (see entire document, particularly Figures 1 and 7, p. 12 [0092]-[0093]);
wherein the determining the level of risk comprises analyzing the stored information, and determining a trend in the stored information (i.e. steps 108 and 110 - see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 6 [0054] – last 15 lines), and
adjusting a monitoring frequency that is determined according to the determined level of risk (see entire document, particularly p. 11 [0085] especially lines 2-7 and 15-17, p. 12 [0090] and [0096]),
in order to provide active/real-time monitoring and to address gaps in data and feedback frequency so as to enable proactive monitoring and maintenance decision making (see entire document, particularly p. 11 [0085] especially lines 2-7 and 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a step of adjusting a monitoring frequency where the monitoring frequency is determined according to the determined level of risk in the method of St. Louis as a known step in order to provide active/real-time monitoring and to address gaps in data and feedback frequency so as to enable proactive monitoring and maintenance decision making as shown by Robinson.
Thus, Claims 9-10 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of St. Louis (‘334) and Robinson (‘106).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: CA3058091 (a method of monitoring and controlling bacteria in plumbing fixtures), 20170100494 (a method of monitoring and treating with UV light a biological fluid within a medical device), 20170305762 (a method of monitoring and treating with UV light bacteria within a plumbing fixture [0014]), WO2018178483 (method of measuring, monitoring and control of bacteria/microorganisms and cleaning of plumbing installation).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758