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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 16-20 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. Examiner notes claims 1-15 are now cancelled by the applicant.
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 17 and 18 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "an amenity into the offline mode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are plurality of amenities on the independent claim 16 and only one amenity is switched to offline mode. It is not clear whether an amenity into the offline mode is referring to the same amenity switched to offline mode in claim 16 or another different amenity out of amenities are switched to offline mode.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "an amenity into the offline mode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are plurality of amenities on the independent claim 16 and only one amenity is switched to offline mode. It is not clear whether an amenity into the offline mode is referring to the same amenity switched to offline mode in claim 16 or another different amenity out of amenities are switched to offline mode.
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.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 33 recites a smart bathroom facility system which is a system and falls into the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 33 recites the limitation, “wherein the operations management system is configured to determine from one or more user reviews that a toilet at an amenity may be clogged”. As evident from the background, based on user reviews (collected data), determine whether the toilet is clogged or not. The determination process consists of evaluation of the user reviews followed by judgement that the toilet is clogged all of which can be performed in a human mind. Thus this limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract idea, the claim 33 recites the additional element, “a plurality of amenities, each amenity comprising a structure including at least one processor and containing one or more bathroom elements”. The limitation recites description of physical structures for the amenities of the bathroom facility such as one or more bathroom elements and at least processor but the limitation does not recite how these physical structures implements the abstract idea into a practical application. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a smart bathroom facility system. Examiner notes the recitation of a generic computer component, “processor” associated with amenities but the processor is recited at high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional element, “an operations management system communicatively coupled to the at least one processor of each of the plurality of amenities, wherein the operations management system includes a cleanliness tracking system configured to receive user reviews of the plurality of amenities”. The recites a cleanliness tracking system that is used to receive data related to user reviews for amenities. This limitation recites a mere data gathering step that is necessary to perform the above recited abstract idea and therefore it is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation does not recite how the cleanliness tracking system or the generically recited computer component, “processor” implements the above recited abstract idea into a practical application other than performing data gathering function. Examiner notes the recitation of a generic computer component, “processor” associated with amenities but the processor is recited at high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The claim has two additional elements. The first additional element that is describing the physical structure of the smart bathroom facility without any detail about how each of the physical structure implements the abstract idea into a practical application cannot provide an inventive concept. Reciting a description of the amenities amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use that is smart bathroom facility. (MPEP 2106.05(h). The recitation of processor as described previously is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The second additional element that is describing mere data collection step using generically recited cleanliness tracking system and generically recited computer component processor as explained previously as extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Further, the data receiving/collection step using generically computer component is simply append well-understood and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”. This second additional element still remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim 33 is not eligible.
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)16-18,20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Satura et al. (US 20200392710 A1).
Regarding claim 16 Stevens et al. teaches, a smart bathroom facility system (toilet reservation and access system having multiple enclosures containing toilets, [0009] and [0040]), comprising:
a plurality of amenities (relevant toilets in the enclosures, [0040] and [0050), each amenity comprising a structure including at least one processor and containing one or more bathroom elements (each toilet enclosure has floor, walls, ceiling, toilet, other bathroom elements such as light, fan, toilet paper, cleaning agents and others. All the above devices/elements can be configured to provide an indication of their respective status electronically over a network. That is each device/elements have processor connected to it, [0144], [0052]-[0056]); and
an operations management system (application) communicatively coupled to the at least one processor of each of the plurality of amenities (the application allows the user to locate relevant toilets based on their availability, [0040], [0041] and [0055]), wherein the operations management system includes a cleanliness tracking system (application operable to allow a user to provide feedback to the system regarding the toilet cleanliness, [0051] and [0042]) configured to receive user reviews of the plurality of amenities to determine a cleanliness status for each of the amenities (users using one or more toilets provides cleanliness feedback to the system, [0103], [0111] and [0051]-[0056]).
Stevens et al. does not teach the details of wherein the operations management system is configured to cause the at least one processor of an amenity to switch the amenity into an offline mode in which the amenity is unavailable for normal use based on the cleanliness status of the amenity. However Stevens et al. teaches in [0111] and [0051] that multiple toilets are monitored and user feedbacks related to service and cleanliness are received to determine status of the toilets. However it is not clear whether the system automatically switches one of the amenity (toilet) into an offline mode based on the cleanliness status.
Satura et al. teaches, wherein the operations management system (instruction determiner) is configured to cause the at least one processor of an amenity to switch the amenity into an offline mode in which the amenity is unavailable for normal use based on the cleanliness status of the amenity (when abnormality is detected on the toilet such as sewage overflow or user feedback regarding to cleanliness or maintenance requirement of the toilet, the instruction determiner automatically locks the particular toilet thus limiting access to the toilet that is toilet is taken offline mode and prompts the user to use any other available clean toilet, [0038] and [0083]).
Stevens et al. and Satura et al. are analogous art because both the them are from same field of endeavor that is monitoring and cleaning toilet based on user feedback and monitoring conditions.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart bathroom facility having plurality of amenities with cleanliness tracking system receiving user reviews related to the amenities as taught by Stevens et al. by applying the known technique of switching an amenity/toilet to offline mode based on cleanliness status as taught by Satura et al. as an improvement to the smart bathroom facility system to yield predictable results for preventing the user to use dirty toilet and notifying the person in charge to take appropriate measures thus improving operational conditions of the bathroom facility and comfort of the user as taught by Satura et al. in [0039].
Stevenson et al. teach:
[0040] Embodiments can comprise a reservation application implemented via software on a computer device, either mobile, such as a smartphone or tablet, on a computer device intended to be at a fixed location, such as a personal computer, and/or hosted on the ‘cloud’ via a remote server and accessed via a mobile device or fixed location device. In some embodiments, the application is accessed via a website. The application is operable to allow a user to, for example, access a server to locate relevant toilets, determine their availability at a particular time, choose among a set of relevant toilets1, and reserve a toilet to be accessed at a scheduled time. The server can be connected via a network, such as the internet, a LAN, or WAN, to a user’s device, and also to the toilet to be reserved. Once a user selects a toilet and reserves the toilet, the server can provide the user an access code via the application and/or by email, text, or other electronic means.
[0051] The application of the embodiments can also be operable to allow a user to provide feedback to the system indicating that service, stocking, or other maintenance such as cleaning is needed at the toilet2. The system can then notify a human (e.g., via computer generated alert, email, text or similar means as may be known in the art) to send service personnel to correct the noted condition. In some embodiments, such user feedback can be used by the system to cause to operate a sanitizing device, such as a connected sprayer containing disinfectant or other cleaner, to sanitize the toilet enclosure and to place the toilet in and out of service (i.e., take it in and out of the available inventory that can be reserved by a user).
Satura et al. teach:
[0038] The notifier 63 may notify the abnormality notification means 27 installed inside or around the toilet room 21 of the occurrence of the abnormality. As a result, a user who is about to enter the toilet room 21 to use the toilet room 21 or a user of the facility 20 around the toilet room 21 can be notified that the abnormality has occurred in the toilet room 21, can be prevented from entering the toilet room21, or can be urged to move away from an area around the toilet room 21. 3In addition, it is possible to make a person in charge of stores or the like around the toilet room 21 take appropriate measures such as ventilation and notification. In addition, it is possible to promptly notify a person in charge who goes around the toilet room 21 that the abnormality occurs in the toilet room 21.
[0083] The instruction determiner 64 instructs a device for controlling locking/unlocking of a door for an entrance/exit of the toilet room 21 or the door 25 of the private room 24 to lock the door or the door 25 when the abnormality detector 62 detects the abnormality of the toilet bowl device 30.4 The device for controlling the locking/unlocking of the door of the entrance/exit or the door 25 may be provided in the door or the door 25, may be provided in the toilet bowl device 30, or may be provided in the toilet room21. When instructed to lock the door or the door 25, the device for controlling the locking or unlocking of the door or the door 25 automatically locks the door or the door 25. At this time, in particular, when automatically locking the door of the entrance/exit of the toilet room 21, the toilet bowl device 30 or the abnormality notification means 27 may be instructed to present the information of another available toilet room 21, private room 24, or toilet bowl device 30 so as to guide the user. In this way, it is possible to prevent the user from entering the toilet room 21 or the private room 24 having the toilet bowl device 30 in which the abnormality is detected and using the toilet bowl device 30, so it is possible to improve the convenience of the user and improve the efficiency of the management, cleaning, and maintenance of the toilet bowl device 30.
Regarding claim 17 combination of Stevens et al. and Satura et al. teach the smart bathroom facility of claim 16. In addition, Stevens et al. teaches, wherein the at least one processor of an amenity in the offline mode is configured to indicate that the amenity is unavailable for normal use on an external sign of the structure of the amenity (onsite visual indicator providing inoperative status of access to the toilet, [0056], [0040] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 18 combination of Stevens et al. and Satura et al. teach the smart bathroom facility of claim 16. In addition, Satura et al. teaches, wherein the at least one processor of an amenity in the offline mode is configured to indicate that the amenity is unavailable for normal use on a user device of a user attempting to gain access to the amenity (due to detected abnormality on the toilet, the door of the toilet is automatically closed that is toilet is taken offline, the user is provided with offline status information about the toilet and then provided with more options to use relevant available toilets, thus preventing the user from using the locked/offline toilet when attempting to gain access to the amenity, [0038] and [0083]5).
Regarding claim 20 combination of Stevens et al. and Satura et al. teach the smart bathroom facility of claim 16. In addition, Satura et al. teaches, wherein the operations management system is configured to automatically generate a service request for an amenity that has been switched to the offline mode (when an abnormality is detected in the toilet and the toilet is automatically locked, a person in charge of the toilets are automatically notified by the notifier, [0038]).
Regarding claim 31 combination of Stevens et al. and Satura et al. teach the smart bathroom facility of claim 16. In addition, Stevens et al. teaches, wherein the cleanliness tracking system determines a cleanliness status for each of the amenities from the user reviews based on cleanliness ratings in the user reviews (application operable to allow a user to provide feedback related to cleanliness of the toilet, [0051] and [0042]), and wherein the cleanliness status can be determined based on one or more of a number of low cleanliness ratings (after a set of number of uses and number of feedbacks from the users, the cleanliness status of the toilets are determined, [0103] and [0111]) or a severity of low cleanliness ratings.
Claims 19,21,23, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Tan et al. (US 20150120388 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Stevens et al. teaches, a smart bathroom facility
System (toilet reservation and access system having multiple enclosures containing toilets, [0009] and [0040]), comprising:
a plurality of amenities (relevant toilets in the enclosures, [0040] and [0050), each amenity comprising a structure including at least one processor and containing one or more bathroom elements (each toilet enclosure has floor, walls, ceiling, toilet, other bathroom elements such as light, fan, toilet paper, cleaning agents and others. All the above devices/elements can be configured to provide an indication of their respective status electronically over a network. That is each device/elements have processor connected to it, [0144], [0052]-[0056]); and
an operations management system (application) communicatively coupled to the at least one processor of each of the plurality of amenities (the application allows the user to locate relevant toilets based on their availability, [0040], [0041] and [0055]), wherein the operations management system includes a cleanliness tracking system (application operable to allow a user to provide feedback to the system regarding the toilet, [0051] and [0042]) configured to receive user reviews of the plurality of amenities to determine a cleanliness status for each of the amenities (the system can receive cleanliness feedback from the users using one or more toilets, [0103], [0111] and [0051]-[0056]).
Stevens et al. does not teach the details of wherein the operations management system is configured to prioritize routing of one or more service personnel to the plurality of amenities based on the cleanliness status for each of the amenities. However Stevens et al. teaches, based on user feedback related to cleanliness and other conditions, the operator is notified to take necessary preventive measures for the toilets flagged by user reviews as taught in [0103] and [0111].
Tan et al. teaches, wherein the operations management system is configured to prioritize routing of one or more service personnel to the plurality of amenities based on the cleanliness status for each of the amenities (out of all the washrooms monitored, the one washroom that the user provided less satisfactory feedback due to dirty toilet basin, no toilet paper and other conditions, an alert is immediately generated and sent to the supervisor (prioritize routing of one or more personnel) for activating necessary corrective actions such as visiting the washroom to perform cleaning, [0242]-[0246]).
Stevens et al. and Tan et al. are analogous art because both the them are from same field of endeavor that is monitoring and cleaning toilet based on user feedback and monitoring conditions.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart bathroom facility having plurality of amenities with cleanliness tracking system receiving user reviews related to the amenities as taught by Stevens et al. by applying the known technique of prioritize routing of the personnel to the plurality of amenities based on cleanliness status of each of the amenities as taught by Tan et al. as an improvement to cleanliness of the smart bathroom system to yield predictable results of cleaning the amenity/toilet that is necessary as determined from user review out all the monitored amenities/toilets as taught by Tan et al. in [0271].
Regarding claim 21, combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 19. In addition Stevens et al. teaches, wherein the operations management system is further configured to prioritize routing of the one or more service personnel to the plurality of amenities based on a geographic location of each of the plurality of amenities (the user can see the geographical location of each of the toilets in the network including operational status, cleanliness status, maintenance status, when last cleaned status, user reviews and others. Based on the above statuses, the operator can also prioritize which toilet to clean first among the monitored toilets, [0059] and [0111]).
Regarding claim 23, combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 19. In addition Tan et al. teaches, wherein the cleanliness tracking system determines a cleanliness status for each of the amenities from the user reviews based on cleanliness ratings in the user reviews (multiple washrooms are monitored and their corresponding user reviews related to cleanliness are monitored to perform cleaning when needed, [0242]-[0245] and [0255]).
Regarding claim 25, combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 23. In addition Tan et al. teaches, wherein the cleanliness status can be determined based on one or more of a number of low cleanliness ratings or a severity of low cleanliness ratings (if the washroom facility generates one or more alerts related to cleanliness6 of the washroom, the supervisor for cleaning responds as soon as possible, [0243], [0246] and [0206]).
Regarding claim 26, combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 23. In addition Tan et al. teaches, wherein the cleanliness status can take into account pictures, comments, answers to follow up questions or other information provided with the cleanliness rating in a user review (when a user selects unsatisfactory rating icon, follow up icons appears for additional details reflecting washroom actual condition and other related icons for detailed comments, [0244]).
Regarding claim 27, combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 19. In addition Tan et al. teaches, wherein the determination of the cleanliness status for each of the plurality of amenities can further be based on data from a smell sensor at a given amenity (connected devices such as sensor can detect unpleasant odors after user exits the toilet and fan is turned on to clear the unpleasant odor, [0102]).
Regarding claim 28, combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 19. In addition Stevens et al. teaches, wherein the determination of the cleanliness status for each of the plurality of amenities can further be based on historical cleanliness data for a given amenity (when the toilet was last cleaned, how many times the toilet was used all these data (historical cleanliness data) in addition to user feedback are available over the network based on which the user and the operator can determine cleanliness status of the toilets, [0059] and [0124]).
Regarding claim 29, combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 19. In addition Tan et al. teaches, wherein the cleanliness tracking system is configured to update the cleanliness status for a given amenity in real-time each time a new cleanliness rating (feedback in real time, [0228]) for the given amenity is received (the feedback service receives feedback from the users using the toilets or any other service in real time and also the alert regarding toilet maintenance is provided in real time to the appropriate personnel/supervisor that is providing updated cleanliness status that required maintenance to the supervisor in real time, [0222],[0228] and [0376]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Tan et al. (US 20150120388 A1) and CN94 (CN 109219794 B).
Regarding claim 22 combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 19. In addition Tan et al. teaches, wherein the operations management system is further configured to prioritize routing of the one or more service personnel to the plurality of amenities (based on where the alerts related to service are generated and how many times the alerts are generated, the supervisor responds as soon as possible to the alerts related to cleanliness of washroom before any other alerts, that is prioritizing routing of the service personnel to the plurality of amenities, [0206],[0243] and [0245]).
Neither in combination nor individually Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the details of based on predicted utilization frequency of the amenity.
CN94 teaches, based on predicted utilization frequency of the amenity (changing the settings of the device based on predicted utilization frequency,7, page 7, 5th paragraph).
CN94 is a pertinent art in relation to Stevens et al. and Tan et al. because predicted utilization frequency is a forward looking metric widely used in many industries. CN94 is trying to solve the same problem as the application that is to determine when device/amenity needs its settings changed/toilet cleaned based on certain criteria and predicted utilization frequency. Even if the reference is not within the same field of endeavor, the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved that making determination about changing operational settings (cleaning the toilet) based on predicted utilization frequency.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart bathroom facility routing service personnel to the plurality of amenities as taught by combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. by applying the known technique of changing the settings/status of the device/cleaning the toilet based on predicted utilization frequency of the device/toilet as taught by CN94 as an improvement to amenity/toilet management to yield predictable results of cleaning the toilet only when necessary.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Tan et al. (US 20150120388 A1) and Liang (US 20160080438 A1).
Regarding claim 24 combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 23.
Neither in combination nor individually Stevens et al. and Tan et al. teach the details of wherein the cleanliness tracking system weights the user reviews based on a historical rating profile for a given user leaving a user review. For Stevens et al. and Tan et al. all the users are given same weight or importance when reviewing the cleanliness status of the amenity/toilet.
Liang teaches, wherein the cleanliness tracking system (application receiving user feedback related to toilet cleanliness in view of Stevens et al.) weights the user reviews based on a historical rating profile for a given user leaving a user review (votes for less frequent users are given less weight and votes for more frequent users are given more weight. The frequency of user’s voting over time is measured by the system that is historical rating profile of a user, [0068]-[0069]).
Stevens et al., Tan et al. and Liang et al. are analogous art because they from the same problem solving area that is determining the problem based on user feedback and solve the problem by determining the appropriate step like cleaning or providing options to the user based on user feedback and user activity.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart bathroom facility receiving user feedback related to cleanliness as taught by combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. applying the known technique of giving weight to the user reviews (votes) based on user historical rating profile (less or more frequent user and corresponding voting frequency) as taught by Liang et al. as an improvement to the user feedback system of the smart bathroom facility to yield predictable results for weighing user feedbacks to determine when to clean the toilet/washroom/bathroom.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Satura et al. (US 20200392710 A1) and CN94 (CN 109219794 B).
Reagrding claim 30 combination of Stevens et al. and Satura et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 16. In addition Satura et al. teaches, wherein the operations management system is further configured to determine whether to switch the amenity to the offline mode (a toilet that is frequently used is cleaned often and toiler that is used less frequently is cleaned less frequently, that is toilet may not be switched to offline mode as often as the more frequently toilet even the toilet is not cleaned frequently, [0111] and [0112]).
Neither in combination nor individually, Stevens et al. and Satura et al. teach the details of based on predicted utilization frequency of the amenity. However Satura et al. explicitly teaches based on the monitored frequency of use of the toilets, the cleaning frequency of the toilets are determined. But the no specific detail about predicted utilization frequency is detected.
JP97 teaches, based on predicted utilization frequency of the amenity (changing the settings of the device based predicted utilization frequency,8, page 7, 5th paragraph).
CN94 is a pertinent art in relation to Stevens et al. and Satura et al. because predicted utilization frequency is a forward looking metric widely used in many industries. JP94 is trying to solve the same problem as the application that is to determine which device/ amenity needs its settings changed/taken offline based on certain criteria and predicted utilization frequency. Even if the reference is not within the same field of endeavor, the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved that making determination about changing operational settings (offline status of the toilet) based on predicted utilization frequency.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart bathroom facility determining whether to switch the amenity to offline mode or not based on frequency of use as taught by combination of Stevens et al. and Satura et al. by applying the known technique of changing the settings/status of the device/toilet based on predicted utilization frequency of the device/toilet as taught by CN94 as an improvement to amenity/toilet management to yield predictable results of switching the toilet/amenity to offline mode only when necessary.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Satura et al. (US 20200392710 A1) and Tan et al. (US 20150120388 A1).
Regarding claim 32 combination of Stevens et al. and Satura et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 16.
Neither in combination nor individually Stevens et al. and Satura et al. teach wherein the cleanliness status can take into account pictures, comments, answers to follow up questions or other information provided with a user review. However both Stevens et al. and Satura et al. teach to receive user feedback related to cleanliness of the toilet.
Tan et al. teaches, wherein the cleanliness status can take into account pictures, comments, answers to follow up questions or other information provided with a user review (when a user selects unsatisfactory rating icon, follow up icons appears for additional details reflecting washroom actual condition and other related icons for detailed comments, [0244]).
Stevens et al., Satura et al. and Tan et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is cleaning the toilets/washroom based on user feedback related to cleanliness of the toilets.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart bathroom facility receiving user feedback related to toilet cleanliness as taught by combination of Stevens et al. and Satura et al. by applying the known technique of taking into account additional comments and answers to follow up questions as taught by Tan et al. as an improvement to the reporting process of the cleanliness status of smart bathroom facility system to yield predictable results of generating detailed user feedback which can be used to direct service quality improvement is the required areas as taught by Tan et al. in [0271].
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Beck et al. (US 20140236543 A1).
Regarding claim 33 Stevens et al. teaches, a smart bathroom facility system (toilet reservation and access system having multiple enclosures containing toilets, [0009] and [0040]), comprising:
a plurality of amenities (relevant toilets in the enclosures, [0040] and [0050), each amenity comprising a structure including at least one processor and containing one or more bathroom elements (each toilet enclosure has floor, walls, ceiling, toilet, other bathroom elements such as light, fan, toilet paper, cleaning agents and others. All the above devices/elements can be configured to provide an indication of their respective status electronically over a network. That is each device/elements have processor connected to it, [0144], [0052]-[0056]); and
an operations management system (application) communicatively coupled to the at least one processor of each of the plurality of amenities (the application allows the user to locate relevant toilets based on their availability, [0040], [0041] and [0055]), wherein the operations management system includes a cleanliness tracking system (application operable to allow a user to provide feedback to the system regarding the toilet cleanliness, [0051] and [0042]) configured to receive user reviews of the plurality of amenities to determine a cleanliness status for each of the amenities (users using one or more toilets provides cleanliness feedback to the system, [0103], [0111] and [0051]-[0056]).
Stevens et al. does not teach the details of wherein the operations management system is configured to determine from one or more user reviews that a toilet at an amenity may be clogged. However Stevens et al. teaches based on user feedback, alert is generated to prompt cleaning of the toilet as taught in [0051]. Cleanliness feedback may include information about clog and any other conditions.
wherein the operations management system is configured to determine from one or more user reviews that a toilet at an amenity may be clogged (user interface screen having a survey prompts a user for more information about clogs seen at a unit level (toilet/washroom), [0098]).
Stevens et al. and Beck et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is based on user review determine toilet condition.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart bathroom facility receiving user feedback related to cleanliness of the bathroom as taught by Stevens et al. by applying the known technique of determining more details like whether the toilet is clogged based on user review/feedback as taught by Beck et al. as an improvement to the cleanliness tracking system of the smart bathroom facility to yield predictable results for determining additional details about the cleanliness of the toilet to perform appropriate corrective measures for cleaning the toilet/bathroom/washroom.
Beck et al. teach:
[0098] FIGS. 28-30 show another illustrative user interface screens 2800, 2900, and 3000 that may include further survey questions about the facility. For example, the survey may gather information about whether a room at the facility had been shut down and/or a patient had been moved due to a clog. If so, other questions may be answered to gather further information. For example, the survey may ask questions about how many times a room has been shut down, such as over a specified time period (e.g., a month, 6 months, a week, a year, etc.). In some cases, the survey may ask which unit at the facility has the highest frequency of room closures due to clogs and/or how many toilets and/or hopper sinks are associated with the unit. In some cases, the survey may ask about an average cost to the facility due to a room shut down, such as a cost due to lost revenue, equipment rental, environmental services, electrical work, infection control, drywall and/or tile repair, plumbing services, outside contractor services, patient dissatisfaction and/or other costs which may be enumerated by the user. In some cases, the survey questions may be shown on a single survey screen. In other cases, the survey questions may be split between different screens, such as question 4 (e.g., section 2810)of FIGS. 28 and 29, and question 5 of FIGS. 29 and 30 (e.g., section 2910). The survey may further prompt a user for information about clogs seen at a unit level of the facility9, such as in section 2910(e.g., question 5). For example, the user may be prompted as to whether a unit had ever been shutdown due to clogs…
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Beck et al. (US 20140236543 A1) and Grover et al. (US 20180010322 A1).
Regarding claim 34 combination of Stevens et al. and Beck et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 33.
Neither in combination nor individually Stevens et al. and Beck et al. teach the details of wherein the operations management system is further configured to activate a remote flush feature at the amenity configured to unclog the toilet. However Beck et al. teaches to determine clog in the toilet based on user review as taught in [0098]. Stevens et al. teaches to generate an alert to clean the toilet as taught in [0051].
Grover et al. teaches, wherein the operations management system is further configured to activate a remote flush feature at the amenity configured to unclog the toilet (automatically selecting a flush volume to flush based on detecting clog on the toilet, [0052] and [0093]).
Stevens et al., Beck et al. and Grover et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is determining condition of the toilet through toilet status monitoring.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart bathroom facility receiving user reviews related to toilet clog as taught by combination of Stevens et al. and Beck et al. by applying the known technique of performing an automatic flush when clog is determined as taught by Grover et al. as an improvement to the cleanliness of the smart bathroom facility to yield predictable results of cleaning the bathroom automatically when clog is detected.
Regarding claim 35 combination of Stevens et al. and Beck et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 33.
Neither in combination nor individually Stevens et al. and Beck et al. teach the details of wherein the operations management system is configured to switch the amenity to an offline mode if the remote flush feature is unable to unclog the toilet. But Stevens et al. teaches the toilet can announce its operation status over the network to the user and the service personnel as taught in [0059]. Based on the operational status of the toilet, the user can determine whether the user can use the toilet or not.
Grover et al. teaches, wherein the operations management system is configured to switch the amenity to an offline mode if the remote flush feature is unable to unclog the toilet (after automatic flushing, if the clog on the toilet is not resolved that is water level exceeds a predetermined level, the automatic flush feature on the toilet is disabled (amenity in offline mode) and the system notifies an abnormal condition requiring user10 intervention, [0052], [0093] and [0105]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smart bathroom facility receiving user reviews related to toilet clog and announcing the operational status of the toilet as taught by combination of Stevens et al. and Beck et al. by applying the known technique of performing an automatic flush when clog is determined and if the clog is not cleared by automatic flush, disable the flushing feature of the toilet (amenity in offline mode) and notify appropriate personnel for user intervention to clear the clog as taught by Grover et al. as an improvement to the cleanliness of the smart bathroom facility to yield predictable results of cleaning the bathroom when clog is detected and preventing the user from using the toilet until clog is fixed based on operational status of the toilet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heydari et al. (US 20210157340 A1) teaches to perform remote flush when alerts generated by the user or the system to unclog a toilet. The system may communicate other problems related to the toilet based on user or system generated alerts where the user can attach pictures to the alerts.
Sinha et al. (US 20220107632 A1) teaches smart bathroom control system performing automatic control based on conditions detected by the sensors and devices installed at the facility.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANZUMAN SHARMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7365. The examiner can normally be reached M and Th 7:00am - 3:00pm and Tue 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, KAMINI SHAH can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/ANZUMAN SHARMIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Plurality of amenities.
2 Determining cleanliness status of the toilet based on user reviews.
3 Automatically taking the toilet offline due to cleanliness issue.
4 Taking the toilet offline automatically when abnormality is detected based on user review and other conditions.
5 See also [0059] of Stevens et al. where each of the toilet can announce its status on a network accessible by the user.
6 Number of low cleanliness ratings.
7 Determining whether to change the settings of the device based on predicted frequency utilization. In view of Satura et al., the device is the toilet and if it is determined if the change in predicted frequency utilization will not affect the efficiency of the toilet even though toilet is dirty but is less frequently used that is still operable while being dirty (in view of Satura et al.) the settings that is the status of toilet does not need to change that is offline but if the efficiency is affected as determined by predicted frequency utilization, take the toilet offline.
8 Determining whether to change the settings of the device based on predicted frequency utilization. In view of Satura et al., the device is the toilet and if it is determined if the change in predicted frequency utilization will not affect the efficiency of the toilet even though toilet is dirty but is less frequently used that is still operable while being dirty (in view of Satura et al.) the settings that is the status of toilet does not need to change that is offline but if the efficiency is affected as determined by predicted frequency utilization, take the toilet offline.
9 Asking for user feedback for clog in a toilet in a facility.
10 The user could be a service personnel responsible for cleaning the toilet in view of Stevens et al. [0051]. Also based on user review, the toilet could be taken out of service (offline).