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 .
Claim amendments filed 5/5/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 5-27, and 30-33 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been considered.
New claim limitations are addressed below.
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) 24-27 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al. (US 2014/0352799) in view of Kessener et al. (US 4,901,922), Glenn et al. (US 2010/0326472), and Oh (KR 2008/0034755)(English machine translation).
With regards to claim 24, Rosko et al. teaches a faucet (abstract) comprising: a spout (12) including a waterway defining an outlet (flow through the spout to the outlet); at least one valve in fluid communication with the waterway of the spout (valve 60); a controller (136) in communication with the at least one valve (para [0137]-[0144]); a disinfectant device (58) fluidly coupled to the waterway spout, the faucet being selectively flow fluid through the disinfection device in response to an input to the controller (opens the flow path through the disinfection device during treatment mode in response to user touch) (para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the disinfectant device includes an electrolytic ozone generator (para [0065]); a mode indicator in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); a user interface (134) in communication with the controller (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]); wherein the fountain is configured to selectively operate in a treatment mode and a non-treatment mode in response to input to the user interface (para [0125] and para [0137]-[0144]; fig 17 and 18); wherein the mode indicator provides indication to a user when the faucet is in the treatment mode (at least operating status of the treatment device 58; para [0125])(fig 17 and 18; see whole document). The mode indicator is a light emitting device (LED display; para [0125]).
Rosko et al. does not teach a specific location for the indicator display. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed the display in any position (including on the spout 12 of the faucet) where it is visible to the user motivated by an expectation of successfully providing notifications to a user.
Rosko et al. does not teach a light emitting device that illuminates the water as claimed. Kessener et al. teaches illuminating water with different light color or intensity in order to indicate a status of the water to be used for hand washing, ie the temperature of the water (abstract; column 1, lines 59-68). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to have a light emitter illuminate the water to be used for handwashing based on the temperature of the water in order to provide a visual indication for the user. Illuminating the water to show temperature during use of the water would result in the water being lit by the illuminating device when the faucet is operating in the treatment mode.
Additionally and alternatively, Kessenger et al. broadly teaching indicating a status of the water with different light colors. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to illuminate the water in different colors to indicate relevant information about the water including being ozonated in order to provide visual indicators for the user.
Rosko teaches a user interface (LED display) but does not teach that it indicates a user’s compliance with hand hygiene protocols. Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches a user interface including a compliance indicator configured to display a representation of a user's compliance with hand hygiene protocols (Paragraph 0104 explains that the cleaning station can provide a video alarm indicating "Successful Cleaning" or "Warning Cleaning Failed".).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
The combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising a sensor configured to detect the amount of time that a user's hands are in a water stream discharged from the outlet of the spout.
Glenn is directed to an automated washing system with compliance verification (title) and teaches a sensor configured to detect the amount of time that a user's hands are in a water stream discharged from the outlet of the spout (Paragraph 0069 describes optical · sensor 216 initiating a cleaning cycle and determining the duration of the washing.). The compliance includes tracking the time the user allowed their hands to be washed (para [0087]). The compliance protocol check can be done on disinfection stations and sanitizer dispensers (para [0030]). The cleaning station can dispense one or more fluids including a disinfectant and the sufficient time is monitored (para [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination with the teaching of Glenn for the purpose of providing compliance verification (paragraph 0002).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to track the time that the sanitizing fluid is being dispensed on the user’s hands to ensure that sterilization occurs for a sufficient time.
The combination results in a sensor in communication with the controller and configured to detect a user's hands in proximity to the spout, the controller configured to determine hand washing compliance with hygiene protocols and provide a signal to the compliance indicator; and wherein the controller determines hand washing compliance with hygiene protocols is based upon duration of a user's hands in proximity to the spout when the faucet is in the treatment mode.
The combination does not disclose displaying the progress towards hand washing compliance in real time. Oh teaches a transportable hand washing apparatus (abstract) and teaches a plurality of indicators that display the progress of each step of the hand washing (sixth paragraph of tech solution). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a plurality of indicators to show progress towards hand washing compliance as a user cleans their hands in order to keep the user informed of the progress.
With regards to claim 25, the treated water passes through the disinfectant device in the treatment mode and non-treated water bypasses the disinfectant device in the non-treatment mode (para [0137]-[0144]; fig 17).
With regards to claim 26, the disinfectant device includes an antibacterial device (the disinfectant device includes an electrolytic ozone generator; ozone is antibacterial; para [0065]).
With regards to claim 27, the disinfectant device includes an electrolytic ozone generator (para [0065]).
With regards to claim 33, the combination results in indicator lights that display incremental increases toward hand washing compliance (changes which lights (each light being a section) are light up as steps are active or complete (second and third to last paragraph of tech solution section of Oh).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 5-23, and 30-32 are allowed.
The closest prior art to each of the independent claims is the rejection over Rosko as modified in the previous non-final action (1/13/2026).
With regards to claims 1 and 15, the prior art does not teach controlling a proportioning valve as claimed within the claimed environment of an ozone faucet as claimed.
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Rosko are opposing to the new limitations. Rosko teaches still purifying the water with the ozone in the non-ozone water dispensing mode (drinking vs cleaning water). Instead of bypassing the ozone generator, the water is ozonated and then the ozone is removed before being dispensed as purified non ozonated water (para [0067]). To include a bypass valve as claimed, Rosko would lose the added function of dispensing purified, non-ozonated water. A person having ordinary skill in the art would thus not be motivated to arrive at the claimed invention within the claim environment.
Dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
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 DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights