Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 06/18/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 13, 19-20, 25, 30, and 33-34 are amended and claims 17-18 and 28-29 are canceled. Claims 13-16, 19-27, and 30-34 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 06/18/2026 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
The double patenting rejections and the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections have been updated in response to applicant’s amendment.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 13-17, 22-27, 31-32, and 34 have been withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
The 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claims 29-30 has been withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment canceling claim 29 and amending claim 30 such that it no longer depends from claim 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks concerning the double patenting, §112(b), and §103 rejections have been considered, but are primarily raised in support of the amendments to the claims. The §103 rejection has been withdrawn in response to the amendments while the double patenting and §112(b) rejections have been updated accordingly.
Claim Objection
Claim 34 is objected to due to the following typographical error: The claim term “the file” has not been introduced into the claim and should recite “a file.” Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 13, 19-21, 25-26, 30, and 33-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 6-9 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,395,192 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims of instant App.
(as filed on 06/18/2026)
Claims of US Pat. No. 10,395,192
(issued on 08/27/2019)
13
6
19
7
20
8
21
9
25
6
26
9
30
9
33
13
34
6
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,395,192. Notably, all of the limitations recited in claims 13, 19-21, 25-26, 30, and 33-34 of the instant application are found in the above-noted claim(s) of the ‘192 Patent, the only difference(s) being attributable to slight variations in terminology describing substantially the same features. Accordingly, claims 13, 19-21, 25-26, 30, and 33-34 of the instant application would have been deemed obvious in view of the above-noted claims of the ‘192 Patent since "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." See In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 13, 19-21, 25-26, 30, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 6-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,719,790 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims of instant App.
(as filed on 06/18/2026)
Claims of US Pat. No. 10,719,790
(issued on 07/21/2020)
13
6
19
7
20
8
21
9
25
6
26
9
30
8
34
6
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,719,790. Notably, all of the limitations recited in claims 13, 19-21, 25-26, 30, and 34 of the instant application are found in the above-noted claim(s) of the ‘790 Patent, the only difference(s) being attributable to slight variations in terminology describing substantially the same features. Accordingly, claims 13, 19-21, 25-26, 30, and 34 of the instant application would have been deemed obvious in view of the above-noted claims of the ‘790 Patent since "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." See In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 13, 25, 33, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,030,553 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims of instant App.
(as filed on 06/18/2026)
Claims of US Pat. No. 11,030,553
(issued on 06/08/2021)
13
12
25
12
33
12
34
12
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,030,553. Notably, all of the limitations recited in claims 13, 25, 33, and 34 of the instant application are found in the above-noted claim(s) of the ‘553 Patent, the only difference(s) being attributable to slight variations in terminology describing substantially the same features. Accordingly, claims 13, 25, 33, and 34 of the instant application would have been deemed obvious in view of the above-noted claims of the ‘553 Patent since "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." See In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
Claims 13, 25, 33, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,531,937 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims of instant App.
(as filed on 06/18/2026)
Claims of US Pat. No. 11,531,937
(issued on 12/20/2022)
13
12
25
12
33
12
34
12
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,531,937 Notably, all of the limitations recited in claims 13, 25, 33, and 34 of the instant application are found in the above-noted claim(s) of the ‘937 Patent, the only difference(s) being attributable to slight variations in terminology describing substantially the same features. Accordingly, claims 13, 25, 33, and 34 of the instant application would have been deemed obvious in view of the above-noted claims of the ‘937 Patent since "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." See In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
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 33-34 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 33 recites the limitation of “the unique instructions” in two instances, however this limitation lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the unique instructions” is intended to relate back to the “set of instructions unique to each of the washroom facilities” that was previously introduced in the claim, or whether “the unique instructions” is intended to as being distinct from the set of unique instructions unique to each of the washroom facilities. For purposes of examination, “the unique instructions” will be interpreted as “the unique set of instructions.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 recites the limitation of “the unique set of instructions,” however this limitation lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the unique set of instructions” is intended to relate back to the generated “instructions unique to each of the washroom facilities” that was previously introduced in the claim, or whether “the unique set of instructions” is intended to as being distinct from the unique instructions unique to each of the washroom facilities. For purposes of examination, “the unique set of instructions” will be interpreted as “the unique instructions.” Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable over the prior art
Claims 13-16, 19-27, and 30-34 are allowable over the prior art. These claims are not allowed, however, because they are subject to double patenting and/or §112(b) rejections and/or objections, as discussed above. With particular respect to dependent claims 14-16, 22-24, 27, and 31-32, these claims are not subject to any rejections in the instant office action, but are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims and would be allowable only if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of their respective base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tokhtuev (US 2010/0315244): discloses hand hygiene compliance monitoring features, including identifying maintenance personnel entering a washroom facility (pars. 7, 85, and Fig. 3: e.g., system comprising a motion detector module, associated with an area of concern (AOC) within a healthcare facility, that detects an AOC entry event when a healthcare worker enters the AOC, detects healthcare worker identification information associated with the healthcare worker; [wherein Fig. 3 displays a washroom facility as an example of the environment in which the worker is identified]):
Talarico (US 2004/0220822): discloses an apparatus for diarizing janitorial services, including computer-based documentation of performance of janitorial services and file storage thereof (pars. 9-20 and 51).
Levchenko, A.I. et al., Hand hygiene monitoring and real-time prompting system. 2012-03-01. 2012 IEEE International Systems Conference SysCon 2012 (Page(s): 1-5): discloses automated hand hygiene compliance monitoring features, including RF beacons at monitored locations and dispensers.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
07/16/2026
Prosecution Insights