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 amendment to claims 17 and 18 have overcome each and every rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous office action mailed on 02/24/2026.Therefore the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 33 has overcome each and every rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the previous office action mailed on 02/24/2026.Therefore the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Regarding independent claim 16 applicant argued neither in combination nor individually Stevens et al. and Satura et al. do not teach to the newly amended limitation, switch the amenity into an offline mode in which the amenity is unavailable for normal use based on the cleanliness status of the amenity determined at least in part on the user reviews. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but not found persuasive. Cited prior art of record Satura et al. is used to teach the concept of taking the toilet offline automatically whenever a cleanliness/abnormality issue arises. Toilet bowl overflow is only an example used by the system. Satura et al. teaches in [0053], that when the system detects the toilet bowl is dirty and the toilet bowl cannot be used, it is determined to be dirty and the toilet is taken offline/closed in view of [0038]. That is when the toilet is detected dirty, the toilet bowl is taken offline and prevented from subsequent use. Furthermore cited prior art of record Stevens et al. explicitly teaches in [0051], [0052] and [0124] that based on user review, the cleanliness status of the toilet is determined and cleaning is triggered automatically by the system. When a toilet is cleaned, it is unavailable for use to the user. As such someone of ordinary skill in the art will use the user feedback regarding cleanliness of the toilet based of which cleaning is triggered as taught by Stevens et al. to automatically take the toilet offline when determined toilet is dirty as taught by Satura et al. to yield predictable results of determining when to trigger cleaning and take toilets offline to improve user’s comfort when using as taught in taught in [0039] thus preventing subsequent occupants from being exposed to a dirty bathroom. Stevens et al. and Satura et al. together teach 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 determined at least in part on the user reviews.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant argued Tan does not teach prioritize routing of one or more service personnel to the plurality of amenities based on a combination of the cleanliness status and a geographic location for each of the amenities. Applicant argued Tan et al. does not weigh in relative statuses and geographic locations of multiple amenities for routing a personnel. Applicnat further argued about ranking cleanliness scores combined with geographic locations to determine most effective cleaning prioritization in a network. Applicant further argued neither Stevens nor Tan contemplates multifactor routing optimization. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but not found persuasive. Claim 19 does not recite how geographic location in addition to cleanliness status is used to determine the priority of routing one or more service personnel to the plurality of amenities. Applicant argued about cleanliness score, amenity location whether the amenity is nearby or further away and based on all these factors determine priority of routing of personnel but there is no such limitation on the claim. The claim does not recite how exactly geographic location tie in with cleanliness status for each amenity and based on what criteria specifically related to geographic location, make the decision to prioritize routing of one or more personnel to the plurality of amenities. Rather claim 19 recites to prioritize routing of one more personnel based on combination of cleanliness status and a geographic location for each amenities that is send a one or more personnel for cleaning the amenities based on cleanliness status and their location since multiple amenities are monitored, location is used to identify which amenity out of all amenities require cleaning. Geographic location does not play any part of determining the priority since there is no detail of how the priority routing will consider geographic location in combination with cleanliness status as argued by the applicant. Tan et al. explicitly teaches in [0043] and [0042], the alert message triggered for cleaning includes both location information and user feedback message regarding cleanliness status such that the cleaning personnel can identify based on location which particular amenity to clean out of all the monitored amenities. Newly found prior art Yenni et al. teaches a system for monitoring the status of a restroom convenience center. Out of all the monitored restrooms, when in a certain restroom a specific condition occurs above a predetermined threshold, it is determined to have unacceptable housekeeping condition such as unclean and the system automatically alerts a cleaning personnel located closest proximity to the restroom, that is routing a service personnel based on geographic location relative to the dirty/unclean restroom. Stevens et al. and Tan et al. both teach to identify the dirty restroom out of all the restrooms based on cleanliness review and the review also has location of the dirty restroom, in view of Yenni et al. prioritize routing of a personnel that is closest to the dirty restroom for cleaning.
Applicant argued that neither in combination nor individually Stevens et al., Beck et al. and Grover et al. teach to determine from one or more user reviews, that a toilet may be clogged. Applicant specifically argued Beck et al. does not teach determining that a toilet in an amenity may be currently clogged determined from one or more user reviews. Applicant’s argument’s have been considered but not found persuasive. Examiner relied on cited prior art Steven et al. to determine cleanliness status of each amenities based on user review and used Beck et al. to teach the concept/detail of determining whether the toilet is clogged based on user’s response or user review in view of Stevens et al. Specifically, [0098] of Beck et al. teaches the interactive screens gather user’s response related to closure due to clogs. There is no limitation on the claim related to user review that excludes user’s response of Beck. Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill to modify the smart bathroom facility system having a cleanliness tracking system configured to receive user reviews of the plurality of amenities and determine from the user reviews cleanliness status of the amenities as taught by Stevens et al. by applying the known technique of determining whether a toilet is clogged based on user’s response (user review) to yield predictable results of determining amenities cleanliness statuses since both 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/response determine amenity or toilet condition.
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.1 (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Satura et al.2 (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 based at least in part on the user reviews (users using one or more toilets provides cleanliness feedback to the system based of which conditions of the toilets are determined, [0103], [0111], [0124] and [0051]-[0056]),
cleanliness status of the amenity determined at least in part on the user
reviews (determine cleanliness status of the amenities based on user feedbacks, [0118] and [0124]).
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 amenity3 (when
abnormality is detected on the toilet such as sewage overflow or the system determines the toilet is dirty and an abnormality has occurred as taught in [0053], the instruction determiner automatically locks the particular toilet thus limiting access to the toilet that is toilet is taken offline mode when toilet is detected dirty 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.
As such before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, someone of ordinary skill in the art will use the user feedback regarding cleanliness of the toilet based of which cleaning is triggered as taught by Stevens et al. to automatically take the toilet offline when determined toilet is dirty as taught by Satura et al. to yield predictable results of determining when to trigger cleaning and take toilets offline to improve user’s comfort as taught in [0039] thus preventing subsequent occupants from being exposed to a dirty bathroom.
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 the 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 the 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]4).
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.
Claim(s) 19,23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens et al.5 (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Tan et al.6 (US 20150120388 A1) and Yenni et al. (US 20090119142 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 including cleanliness status, [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 a combination of cleanliness status and a geographic location 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 a combination of cleanliness status (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. The generated alert includes location7 of the washroom and the feedback message as taught in [0043]-[0044]. The generated alert is then sent to the supervisor (prioritize routing of one or more personnel) for activating necessary corrective actions such as visiting the washroom at the specified location 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 and location of each of the amenities as taught by Tan et al. 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].
Neither Stevens et al and Tan et al. specifically teaches to route a one or more service personnel strictly based on geographic location in addition to cleanliness status. However Stevens et al. teaches that 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]). Also the alert generated in Tan et al. also includes location of the toilet reviewed unclean toilet by the user among all the toilets.
On the other hand Yenni et al. teaches, and a geographic location for each of the amenities (when in a restroom a specific condition occurs multiple times and is above predetermined threshold, it is determined to have unacceptable housekeeping condition that is unclean or dirty restroom, an alert is automatically generated and sent to the cleaning personnel/janitor closet to the unclean restroom for cleaning, that is a prioritize routing of a service personnel based geographic location of the dirty restroom relative to cleaning personnel’s8 location, [0103] and [0135]).
Yenni et al. is an analogous art to Stevens et al. and Tan et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor that is monitoring the status of the toilets based on cleanliness status.
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 system having a cleanliness tracking system which prioritize routing of service personnel based on cleanliness review which includes both cleanliness status and location of the toilet used by the user out of all the toilets as taught by combination of Stevens et al. and Tan et al. by applying the known technique of prioritize routing of the service personnel based on geographic location of the service personnel closest to the dirty/unclean restroom as taught by Yenni et al. to yield predictable results of prioritizing toilets that are most at issue for being unclean and cleaning them as soon as possible since the service personnel closet to the unclean toilet is called for cleaning. Since Stevens et al. and Tan et al. already identify dirty restrooms and their location via user review process, it is interpreted that the Stevens-Tan-Yenni combination would prioritize those same dirty bathrooms and alert the closest cleaning personnel to those bathrooms to clean them next.
Regarding claim 23, combination of Stevens et al., Tan et al. and Yenni 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., Tan et al. and Yenni 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 cleanliness9 of the washroom, the supervisor for cleaning responds as soon as possible, [0243], [0246] and [0206]).
Regarding claim 26, combination of Stevens et al., Tan et al. and Yenni 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., Tan et al. and Yenni 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., Tan et al. and Yenni 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., Tan et al. and Yenni 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.10 (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Tan et al.11 (US 20150120388 A1) and Yenni et al. (US 20090119142 A1) and furthermore in view of CN94 (CN 109219794 B).
Regarding claim 22 combination of Stevens et al., Tan et al. and Yenni 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., Tan et al. and Yenni 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 frequency12, page 7,
5th paragraph).
CN94 is a pertinent art in relation to Stevens et al., Tan et al. and Yenni 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.13 (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Tan et al.14 (US 20150120388 A1) and Yenni et al. (US 20090119142 A1) and furthermore in view of Liang (US 20160080438 A1).
Regarding claim 24 combination of Stevens et al., Tan et al. and Yenni et al. teach the smart bathroom facility system of claim 23.
Neither in combination nor individually Stevens et al.,Tan et al. and Yenni 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., Yenni 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.,Tan et al. and Yenni et al. by 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. 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.15 (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Satura et al. (US 20200392710 A 1) 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.
CN94 teaches, based on predicted utilization frequency of the amenity
(changing the settings of the device based predicted utilization frequency16, 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. CN94 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 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.17 (US 20230060626 A1) in view of Satura et al. (US 20200392710 A 1) 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. to yield predictable results of generating detailed user feedback which can be used to direct service quality improvement in 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) and
Grover et al. (US 20180010322 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, wherein the operations management system is further configured to activate a remote flush feature at the amenity configured to unclog
the toilet and, if the remote flush feature is unable to unclog the toilet: switch the amenity to an offline mode if the remote flush feature is unable to unclog the toilet; and/or alert one or more service personnel of a need for an in-person visit to the amenity. 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.
Beck et al. teaches, 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 user18 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.
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.
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 and 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. 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]) and,
if the remote flush feature is unable to unclog the toilet:
switch the amenity to an offline mode if the remote flush feature is unable to unclog the toilet; and/or alert one or more service personnel of a need for an in-person visit to the amenity (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 user19 intervention, [0052], [0093] and [0105]).
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. to yield predictable results of cleaning the bathroom automatically 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.
Bhinge et al. (US 20210117939 A1) teaches a system and method for receiving user reviews related to toilet cleanliness and determine cleaning based on the reviews.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 7/30/26
1 Cited prior art of record.
2 Cited prior art of record.
3Satura et al. is used to teach the concept of taking the toilet offline automatically whenever a cleanliness/abnormality issue arises. Toilet bowl overflow is only an example used by the system. Satura et al. teaches in [0053], that when the system detects the toilet bowl is dirty and the toilet bowl cannot be used, it is determined to be dirty and the toilet is taken offline/closed in view of [0038]. That is when the toilet is detected dirty, the toilet bowl is taken offline and prevented from subsequent use of dirty toilet.
.
4 See also [0059] of Stevens et al. where each of the toilet can announce its status on a network
accessible by the user.
5 Cited prior art of record.
6 Cited prior art of record.
7 The claim does not recite how geographic location in addition to cleanliness status is used to determine the priority of routing one or more service personnel to the plurality of amenities. Rather claim recites to send one or more personnel for cleaning the amenities based on cleanliness status and their location since multiple amenities are monitored, location is used to identify which amenity out of all amenities require cleaning. Also Stevens et al. teaches, 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 ])
8 In view of [0103], there are multiple janitors/cleaning personnel to take the service calls such as cleaning. Only the janitor/cleaning personnel closest to the dirt restroom out of all the janitors is sent an alarm to clean the dirty restroom that is prioritize routing based on geographic location.
9 Number of low cleanliness ratings.
10 Cited prior art of record.
11 Cited prior art of record.
12 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.
13 Cited prior art of record.
14 Cited prior art of record.
15 Cited prior art of record.
16 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.
17 Cited prior art of record.
18 Through interactive screens, asking for user feedback for clog in a toilet in a facility. There is no limitation on the claim related to user review that excludes user’s response of Beck et al.
19 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).
Prosecution Insights