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
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment received 09/15/2025.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 18, 25, and 33-34 are amended and claim 28 is canceled. Claims 13-27 and 29-34 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
The objection to claim 33 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment correcting the typographical error noted in the previous office action. However, additional objections have been added in the instant office action.
The 35 USC §112(b) rejection of claims 18-21 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment resolving the antecedent basis deficiency in claim 18.
The 35 USC §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 34 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment. However, a new ground of rejection under §103 is applied to claim 34 in the instant office action.
The 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 33 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 USC §102/§103 arguments: Applicant's arguments with respect to the §102(a)(1) rejection of claim 34 are primarily raised in support of the amendment. In response to the amendment, the §102 rejection of claim 34 is withdrawn, however claim 34 is rejected below under §103.
Regarding the §103 rejection of claims 13-17, 22, and 25-28, applicant first argues that “there is not proper motivation to successfully combine the references.” This argument is found unpersuasive for at least two reasons.
First, in response to Applicant’s assertion of a lack of motivation, this argument lacks merit because motivation is not required to support the combination of references in support of a §103 rejection. Notably, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) holding that an obvious rejection is proper even when there is no explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art references in In re Ethicon, Inc., No. 2015-1696. Ethicon appealed to the CAFC arguing that the PTAB’s decision does not provide any motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art references. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB stating: “KSR directs that an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references is not necessary to support a conclusion of obviousness.” 550 U.S. at 415–16. The Supreme Court has instructed that “a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions,” id. at 417, and apply “an expansive and flexible approach” to obviousness, id. at 415. Accordingly, Applicant’s suggestion that the §103 rejection is based on a lack of motivation is not persuasive.
Next, the Examiner maintains that the §103 rejection plainly sets forth a rational underpinning for combining the teachings of Strahlin/Taneff to render the claimed invention as obvious, including a motivation-based rationale plainly articulated in the office action, which applicant has not specifically addressed or shown to be in error. In particular, Strahlin and Taneff are considered analogous art because each is directed to features for employing sensors and automated techniques for monitoring dispensers and employee actions in relation thereto, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of maintenance of washroom facilities by maintenance personnel, such that modifying the teachings of Strahlin such that maintenance personnel entering the washroom facility are identified, as claimed, would serve the motivation to monitor employee compliance with work responsibilities (Taneff at par. 6) or to ensure that a particular worker (e.g., janitor) responsible for a work task is informed of the specific needs associated with a dispenser at a particular geographic location such as to enable the particular worker to react and refill a dispenser at the particular location (Strahlin at par. 61). Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Next, referring to independent claim 13, applicant argues that “Taneff fails to provide for the identification system providing a unique set of maintenance instructions to the identified maintenance personnel but instead is instead merely concerned with whether the task (i.e., hand washing) was completed or not.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, the Examiner emphasizes that Taneff was not cited or relied on to teach the disputed limitation. Notably, in the §103 rejection of claim 13, Taneff is relied on only to teach the limitation of “identify a maintenance personnel that enters the washroom facility” (Taneff at pars.186, 202-214, and Figs. 1-4), whereas the §103 rejection plainly cites the primary reference, Strahlin, to teach the feature for providing a unique set of instructions to the maintenance personnel (as explained in the §103 rejection set forth in the previous and current §103 rejection of claim 13). Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, it is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejection of claim 33, the arguments are primarily raised in support of the amendment to the claim, which are moot in view of withdrawal of the §103 rejection of claim 33.
Claim Objection
Claims 29 and 33 are 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 13-27 and 29-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-13 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 09/15/2025)
Claims of US Pat. No. 10,395,192
(issued on 08/27/2019)
13
1
14
2
15
3
16
4
17
5
18
6
19
7
20
8
21
9
22
10
23
11
24
12
25
6
26
9
27
3
29
6
30
7
31
11
32
12
33
13
34
1
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 13-27 and 29-34 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 13-27 and 29-34 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 13-27, 29-32 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-12 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 09/15/2025)
Claims of US Pat. No. 10,719,790
(issued on 07/21/2020)
13
1
14
2
15
3
16
4
17
5
18
6
19
7
20
8
21
9
22
10
23
11
24
12
25
8
26
9
27
3
29
6
30
7
31
11
32
12
34
1
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 13-27, 29-32 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 13-27, 29-32 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 13-15, 17-20, 25-27, 29-30, and 33-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 8-14 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 09/15/2025)
Claims of US Pat. No. 11,030,553
(issued on 06/08/2021)
13
8
14
9
15
10
17
11
18
12
19
13
20
14
25
9
26
9
27
10
29
12
30
14
33
12
34
8
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 13-15, 17-20, 25-27, 29-30, and 33-34 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 13-15, 17-20, 25-27, 29-30, and 33-34 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 13-15, 17-20, 25-27, 29-30, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 8-14 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 09/15/2025)
Claims of US Pat. No. 11,531,937
(issued on 12/20/2022)
13
8
14
9
15
10
17
11
18
12
19
13
20
14
25
11
26
11
27
11
29
12
30
14
34
11
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 13-15, 17-20, 25-27, 29-30, 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 13-15, 17-20, 25-27, 29-30, 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 29-30 and 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 29 depends from claim 28, however claim 28 has been canceled, and claim 29 therefore lacks proper antecedent basis because of its dependency from a canceled claim. For purposes of examination, claim 29 will be interpreted as depending from claim 25. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 depends from claim 29 and fails to cure the deficiency noted above, and is therefore indefinite based on inheritance of the deficiency of parent claim 29.
Claim 34 recites the new 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 unique instructions previously introduced in the claim, or whether “the unique set of instructions” is intended to refer to a “set” of unique instructions that is distinct from the unique instructions. For purposes of examination, “the unique set of instructions” will be interpreted as “the unique instructions.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 13-17, 22, 25-27, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Strahlin et al. (US 2013/0240554, hereinafter “Strahlin”) in view of Taneff (US 2012/0062382, hereinafter “Taneff”).
Claim 13: Strahlin teaches a system for maintenance of a plurality of washroom facilities by maintenance personnel (pars. 4, 21, 62, and Figs. 1-3 and 10: a system for handling refill of washroom tissue products using the tissue dispenser and a server; may serve several locations of a customer and even several different customers; several clients, office locations which handle their own cleaning or maintenance of washrooms), comprising:
one or more product dispensers within each of the washroom facilities that require periodic refill of a consumable product (pars. 3, 10-15, 21-23, 36, 59, and Fig. 1: e.g., washroom comprising a number of toilet stalls 101 with toilet seats 102 and toilet tissue dispenser; tissue dispenser comprises a tissue holder arranged to receive a tissue product to be dispensed from the tissue dispenser and at least one detection device arranged on the tissue holder; dispenser arranged accordingly provides an accurate, reproducible, and flexible way of determining the level of the tissue product in the dispenser; tissue dispenser may further comprise tissue refill; level may be determined in steps, e.g. in at least three levels related to need for providing refill: e.g. refill not needed, refill soon to be needed, refill is needed, or furthermore refill changed for another position; data collection unit may be located in a washroom and collect data from a plurality of tissue dispensers; triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon; for instance notification to the janitor to include this dispenser in the coming service round);
a sensor configured with each of the product dispensers that detects a product level or amount condition of the product dispenser, the sensors in communication with a monitoring station assigned to the washroom facility (pars. 20, 59, and Fig. 8: detection device comprises at least two sensor elements and a movement is identified in a direction from a first sensor element to a second sensor element where a level is determined from a difference signal which in turn is determined by obtaining a first and a second sensor signal from the reflected light from each first and second sensor; triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon);
a processor configured to generate a set of instructions unique to each of the washroom facilities based upon the detected product level or amount conditions of the dispensers in the respective washroom facility (pars. 3, 59-61, and Figs. 1-5: components of the SCU are mounted on a circuit board and appropriately mounted in a casing with light transmitter/detector openings. The SCU…processing unit may comprise any suitable type of unit executing instructions sets of software or hardware program; processing unit may for instance be a central processing unit (CPU); triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon; for instance notification to the janitor to include this dispenser in the coming service round; server may transmit information to a device operated by the janitor, e.g. in a simple form as a text message to a mobile phone or smart phone; however, it should be noted that special software to be executed in the device of the janitor may be developed for more complex handling of refill and service interval operations; for instance graphical display of each washroom and which dispensers that needs to be refilled and so on; detecting identification information of a product, to communicate this to a central unit, and arranged to vary a dispensing parameter, such as the amount to dispense; server 1001 may be arranged to execute a number of different operations depending on configuration of the system, such as analysis of SCU or DCU signals for determining current level in each dispenser, identify product quality, identify each SCU and corresponding dispenser together with geographical location, keeping track of an inventory, generating reports, transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location); and
an identification (ID) system configured within each washroom facility to … provide the unique set of instructions to the maintenance personnel in a message delivered to the maintenance personnel (pars. 17, 59-61, and Fig. 10: determining a cause of action, for instance when the level is getting below a certain level information about this may be transmitted from the server to for instance a janitor in charge of servicing the washroom that refill is needed on the next service round or if the level is below a threshold that refill is needed immediately and the janitor may make an extra service round to the washroom; server may transmit information to a device operated by the janitor, e.g. in a simple form as a text message to a mobile phone or smart phone; however, it should be noted that special software to be executed in the device of the janitor may be developed for more complex handling of refill and service interval operations; for instance graphical display of each washroom and which dispensers that needs to be refilled and so on; server 1001 may be arranged to execute a number of different operations depending on configuration of the system, such as analysis of SCU or DCU signals for determining current level in each dispenser, identify product quality, identify each SCU and corresponding dispenser together with geographical location, keeping track of an inventory, generating reports, transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location).
Strahlin does not teach identify a maintenance personnel that enters the washroom facility.
Taneff teaches identify a maintenance personnel that enters the washroom facility (pars.186, 202-214, and Figs. 1-4: e.g., detect the employee at each entry and exit to and from the restroom; Detects the employee's RFID at every entry to welcome the employee by name (LCD & speaker); Communicates with the RFID at each exit to get the pass/fail status of the employee and immediately generate message of either appreciation for compliance or warning otherwise; FDU entry/exit sensors (35) are constantly on. Turns the RFDU on any time an employee enters or exits the restroom, so that RFID and RFDU can exchange information about compliance or noncompliance with the hand washing requirements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Strahlin with Taneff because the references are analogous since they are each directed to features for employing sensors and automated techniques for monitoring dispensers and employee actions in relation thereto, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of maintenance of washroom facilities by maintenance personnel, and because modifying the teachings of Strahlin such that maintenance personnel entering the washroom facility are identified, as claimed, would serve the motivation to monitor employee compliance with work responsibilities (Taneff at par. 6) or to ensure that a particular worker (e.g., janitor) responsible for a work task is informed of the specific needs associated with a dispenser at a particular geographic location such as to enable the particular worker to react and refill a dispenser at the particular location (Strahlin at par. 61); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14: Strahlin further teaches wherein the ID system is configured to deliver the message to a mobile smart device carried by the maintenance personnel (pars. 59, 61, and Fig. 10: triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon; for instance notification to the janitor to include this dispenser in the coming service round. The server may transmit information to a device operated by the janitor, e.g. in a simple form as a text message to a mobile phone or smart phone; transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location, user equipment 1002 may be any suitable device able to communicate with the server directly or indirectly, such as a mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), smart phone, pager, tablet computer, laptop, computer in janitor office area, and so on).
Claim 15: Strahlin further teaches an audio or visual display device within the washroom facility, the messages delivered via the audio or visual display device (pars. 59 and 61: describing messages delivered to a janitor, such as via text message and/or via graphical display of washroom and dispenses, wherein it is noted that a janitor may be within a washroom facility at the time of receiving such messages, such that the janitor’s mobile device, i.e., visual display device, is within the washroom facility at the time of message delivery – e.g., e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location, and even order products from a distributor 1003 if products availability is getting low at the inventory. The janitor receiving the signal may act upon this and depending on the need for refill, he/she can make a note to refill during next service round or to immediately react and urgently refill the dispenser at the location. The user equipment 1002 may be any suitable device able to communicate with the server directly or indirectly, such as a mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), smart phone, pager, tablet computer, laptop, computer in janitor office area, and so on).
Claim 16: Strahlin does not teach the limitation of claim 16.
Taneff teaches wherein the maintenance personnel is identified by name in the message (pars. 202-214 and Figs. 1-4: e.g., Detects the employee's RFID at every entry to welcome the employee by name (LCD & speaker); Communicates with the RFID at each exit to get the pass/fail status of the employee and immediately generate message of either appreciation for compliance or warning otherwise; CD to display names and the appropriate message of welcoming at each entrance or appreciation/warning at each exit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Strahlin/Taneff, Taneff’s message that includes identification of an employee (maintenance personnel) by name in a message, as claimed, in order to provide a welcome message to the employee being monitored (Taneff at par. 207) or to provide a personalized engagement with a particular employee (Taneff at par. 222); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 17: Strahlin further teaches wherein the plurality of the washroom facilities are assigned to a common monitoring station, the monitoring station in communication with the processor, and wherein the ID system includes an ID signal transmitter carried by each of the maintenance personnel that generates an ID signal that is unique to the maintenance personnel, the washroom facility configured with a receiver that receives the ID signals from the ID signal transmitters and transmits the ID signals to a controller that is in communication with the processor (pars. 2, 36, 44, 59, 61, and Figs. 1 and 10: Each SCU transmits wirelessly a signal indicating the current level in a respective dispenser to a DCU 107 or directly to the server 1001 as discussed earlier. A plurality of DCUs may be attached to the system and each DCU is in turn arranged to transmit received signals; washroom may also be provided with a data collection unit (DCU) 107 [i.e., common monitoring station]; dispenser may be arranged with a detection device, for instance a sensor collection unit (SCU), for determining a level of each dispensing product and a communication interface for communicating the level to the DCU or to a central server (not shown) for further handling; dispenser with a sensor for detecting identification information of a product, to communicate this to a central unit; processing unit is arranged to execute instruction sets for operating the DCU as to collect data from the SCU(s) and relay these data to a central server as will be discussed in more detail with reference to FIG. 9; server 1001 may be arranged to execute a number of different operations depending on configuration of the system, such as analysis of SCU or DCU signals for determining current level in each dispenser, identify product quality, identify each SCU and corresponding dispenser together with geographical location; transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location [i.e., ID signal that is unique to the maintenance personnel]).
Claim 22: Strahlin further teaches wherein the processor is in communication with a computer configured to maintain [information] on each of the washroom facilities, wherein conditions or requirements specific to the washroom facilities are used to generate the unique set of instructions (pars. 17, 59-61, and Fig. 10: determining a cause of action, for instance when the level is getting below a certain level information about this may be transmitted from the server to for instance a janitor in charge of servicing the washroom that refill is needed on the next service round or if the level is below a threshold that refill is needed immediately and the janitor may make an extra service round to the washroom; server may transmit information to a device operated by the janitor, e.g. in a simple form as a text message to a mobile phone or smart phone; however, it should be noted that special software to be executed in the device of the janitor may be developed for more complex handling of refill and service interval operations; for instance graphical display of each washroom and which dispensers that needs to be refilled and so on; server 1001 may be arranged to execute a number of different operations depending on configuration of the system, such as analysis of SCU or DCU signals for determining current level in each dispenser, identify product quality, identify each SCU and corresponding dispenser together with geographical location, keeping track of an inventory, generating reports, transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location), but does teach maintain one or more files.
Taneff teaches maintain one or more files on each of the washroom facilities (pars. 202, 212-216, and 222: RFDU (radiofrequency door unit) (12) is the main control device, which is mounted inside the wall close to the restroom entrance door frame in an enclosure of the size of an electric box. It emits detectable RF waves within a radius of two feet or so. It is normally off and gets turned on by the normally on entry/exit sensors (35), which allows the employee's RFID to communicate with it any time said employee enters or exits the restroom. The RFDU keeps the hygiene history file for all employees who have engaged it until the time this history file is uploaded to the company's main computer(s) for the management to review; Communicates with the RFID at each exit to get the pass/fail status of the employee and immediately generate message of either appreciation for compliance or warning otherwise; Keeps a real-time log of all entries, exits, and hygiene history of all employees, who have engaged it; Uploads history files to the company's main computers; display the name of the engaged person and the steps of the hand washing process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include, in the combination of Strahlin/Taneff, Taneff’s maintenance of one or more files on each of the washroom facilities, as claimed, in order to organize the data related to compliance to aid with convenient review and analysis by management (Taneff at par. 21) and for storing historical employee records on a company’s main computers (Taneff at pars. 202, 204); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 25: Strahlin teaches a system for maintenance of a plurality of washroom facilities by maintenance personnel (pars. 4, 21, 62, and Figs. 1-3 and 10: a system for handling refill of washroom tissue products using the tissue dispenser and a server; may serve several locations of a customer and even several different customers; several clients, office locations which handle their own cleaning or maintenance of washrooms), comprising:
one or more product dispensers within each of the washroom facilities that require periodic refill of a consumable product (pars. 3, 10-15, 21-23, 36, 59, and Fig. 1: e.g., washroom comprising a number of toilet stalls 101 with toilet seats 102 and toilet tissue dispenser; tissue dispenser comprises a tissue holder arranged to receive a tissue product to be dispensed from the tissue dispenser and at least one detection device arranged on the tissue holder; dispenser arranged accordingly provides an accurate, reproducible, and flexible way of determining the level of the tissue product in the dispenser; tissue dispenser may further comprise tissue refill; level may be determined in steps, e.g. in at least three levels related to need for providing refill: e.g. refill not needed, refill soon to be needed, refill is needed, or furthermore refill changed for another position; data collection unit may be located in a washroom and collect data from a plurality of tissue dispensers; triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon; for instance notification to the janitor to include this dispenser in the coming service round);
one or more sensors configured with each of the product dispensers that provides data regarding a product level or amount condition of the product dispenser (pars. 20, 59, and Fig. 8: detection device comprises at least two sensor elements and a movement is identified in a direction from a first sensor element to a second sensor element where a level is determined from a difference signal which in turn is determined by obtaining a first and a second sensor signal from the reflected light from each first and second sensor; triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon), wherein the data is utilized to generate a set of instructions for each of the washroom facilities (pars. 3, 59-61, and Figs. 1-5: graphical display of each washroom and which dispensers that needs to be refilled and so on; detecting identification information of a product, to communicate this to a central unit, and arranged to vary a dispensing parameter, such as the amount to dispense; analysis of SCU or DCU signals for determining current level in each dispenser, identify product quality, identify each SCU and corresponding dispenser together with geographical location, keeping track of an inventory, generating reports, transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location); and
an identification system (ID) for each washroom facility and configured to … provide the set of instructions to the maintenance personnel in a message delivered to the maintenance personnel (pars. 17, 59-61, and Fig. 10: determining a cause of action, for instance when the level is getting below a certain level information about this may be transmitted from the server to for instance a janitor in charge of servicing the washroom that refill is needed on the next service round or if the level is below a threshold that refill is needed immediately and the janitor may make an extra service round to the washroom; server may transmit information to a device operated by the janitor, e.g. in a simple form as a text message to a mobile phone or smart phone; however, it should be noted that special software to be executed in the device of the janitor may be developed for more complex handling of refill and service interval operations; for instance graphical display of each washroom and which dispensers that needs to be refilled and so on; server 1001 may be arranged to execute a number of different operations depending on configuration of the system, such as analysis of SCU or DCU signals for determining current level in each dispenser, identify product quality, identify each SCU and corresponding dispenser together with geographical location, keeping track of an inventory, generating reports, transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location);
wherein the plurality of the washroom facilities are assigned to a common monitoring station, and wherein the ID system includes an ID signal transmitter carried by each of the maintenance personnel that generates an ID signal that is unique to the maintenance personnel, the washroom facility configured with a receiver that receives the ID signals, wherein the receiver is configured to detect … and transmits the ID signals and the detected time to a controller (pars. 2, 36, 44, 59, 61, and Figs. 1 and 10: Each SCU transmits wirelessly a signal indicating the current level in a respective dispenser to a DCU 107 or directly to the server 1001 as discussed earlier. A plurality of DCUs may be attached to the system and each DCU is in turn arranged to transmit received signals; washroom may also be provided with a data collection unit (DCU) 107 [i.e., common monitoring station]; dispenser may be arranged with a detection device, for instance a sensor collection unit (SCU), for determining a level of each dispensing product and a communication interface for communicating the level to the DCU or to a central server (not shown) for further handling; dispenser with a sensor for detecting identification information of a product, to communicate this to a central unit; processing unit is arranged to execute instruction sets for operating the DCU as to collect data from the SCU(s) and relay these data to a central server as will be discussed in more detail with reference to FIG. 9; server 1001 may be arranged to execute a number of different operations depending on configuration of the system, such as analysis of SCU or DCU signals for determining current level in each dispenser, identify product quality, identify each SCU and corresponding dispenser together with geographical location; transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location [i.e., ID signal that is unique to the maintenance personnel).
Strahlin does not teach identify a maintenance personnel that enters the washroom facility; and detect a maintenance personnel for a period of time.
Taneff teaches identify a maintenance personnel that enters the washroom facility (pars.186, 202-214, and Figs. 1-4: e.g., detect the employee at each entry and exit to and from the restroom; Detects the employee's RFID at every entry to welcome the employee by name (LCD & speaker); Communicates with the RFID at each exit to get the pass/fail status of the employee and immediately generate message of either appreciation for compliance or warning otherwise; FDU entry/exit sensors (35) are constantly on. Turns the RFDU on any time an employee enters or exits the restroom, so that RFID and RFDU can exchange information about compliance or noncompliance with the hand washing requirements); and detect a maintenance personnel for a period of time (pars. 19, 21, 184, 202, 229, and 233: e.g., monitoring system that records the actual duration, and process of hand washing in order to enable evaluation of employees' hand washing practices; employee's RFID to communicate with it any time said employee enters or exits the restroom; durations displayed for the employee on countdown timers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Strahlin with Taneff because the references are analogous since they are each directed to features for employing sensors and automated techniques for monitoring dispensers and employee actions in relation thereto, which is within Applicant’s field of endeavor of maintenance of washroom facilities by maintenance personnel, and because modifying the teachings of Strahlin such that maintenance personnel entering the washroom facility are identified and detected for a period of time, as claimed, would serve the motivation to monitor employee compliance with work responsibilities (Taneff at par. 6) or to ensure that a particular worker (e.g., janitor) responsible for a work task is informed of the specific needs associated with a dispenser at a particular geographic location such as to enable the particular worker to react and refill a dispenser at the particular location (Strahlin at par. 61); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 26: Strahlin further teaches wherein the ID system is configured to deliver the message to a mobile smart device carried by the maintenance personnel (pars. 59, 61, and Fig. 10: triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon; for instance notification to the janitor to include this dispenser in the coming service round. The server may transmit information to a device operated by the janitor, e.g. in a simple form as a text message to a mobile phone or smart phone; transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location, user equipment 1002 may be any suitable device able to communicate with the server directly or indirectly, such as a mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), smart phone, pager, tablet computer, laptop, computer in janitor office area, and so on).
Claim 27: Strahlin further teaches an audio or visual display device within the washroom facility, the messages delivered via the audio or visual display device (pars. 59 and 61: describing messages delivered to a janitor, such as via text message and/or via graphical display of washroom and dispenses, wherein it is noted that a janitor may be within a washroom facility at the time of receiving such messages, such that the janitor’s mobile device, i.e., visual display device, is within the washroom facility at the time of message delivery – e.g., e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location, and even order products from a distributor 1003 if products availability is getting low at the inventory. The janitor receiving the signal may act upon this and depending on the need for refill, he/she can make a note to refill during next service round or to immediately react and urgently refill the dispenser at the location. The user equipment 1002 may be any suitable device able to communicate with the server directly or indirectly, such as a mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), smart phone, pager, tablet computer, laptop, computer in janitor office area, and so on).
Claim 34: Strahlin teaches a system for maintenance of a plurality of washroom facilities by maintenance personnel (pars. 4, 21, 62, and Figs. 1-3 and 10: a system for handling refill of washroom tissue products using the tissue dispenser and a server; may serve several locations of a customer and even several different customers; several clients, office locations which handle their own cleaning or maintenance of washrooms), comprising:
one or more product dispensers within each of the washroom facilities that require periodic refill of a consumable product (pars. 3, 10-15, 21-23, 36, 59, and Fig. 1: e.g., washroom comprising a number of toilet stalls 101 with toilet seats 102 and toilet tissue dispenser; tissue dispenser comprises a tissue holder arranged to receive a tissue product to be dispensed from the tissue dispenser and at least one detection device arranged on the tissue holder; dispenser arranged accordingly provides an accurate, reproducible, and flexible way of determining the level of the tissue product in the dispenser; tissue dispenser may further comprise tissue refill; level may be determined in steps, e.g. in at least three levels related to need for providing refill: e.g. refill not needed, refill soon to be needed, refill is needed, or furthermore refill changed for another position; data collection unit may be located in a washroom and collect data from a plurality of tissue dispensers; triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon; for instance notification to the janitor to include this dispenser in the coming service round);
a sensor configured with each of the product dispensers that detects a product level or amount condition of the product dispenser, the sensors in communication with a monitoring station associated with one or more of the washroom facilities (pars. 20, 59, and Fig. 8: detection device comprises at least two sensor elements and a movement is identified in a direction from a first sensor element to a second sensor element where a level is determined from a difference signal which in turn is determined by obtaining a first and a second sensor signal from the reflected light from each first and second sensor; triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon);
a processor configured to generate instructions unique to each of the washroom facilities based upon the detected product level or amount conditions of the dispensers in the respective washroom facility (pars. 3, 59-61, and Figs. 1-5: components of the SCU are mounted on a circuit board and appropriately mounted in a casing with light transmitter/detector openings. The SCU…processing unit may comprise any suitable type of unit executing instructions sets of software or hardware program; processing unit may for instance be a central processing unit (CPU); triggering the SCU to send a first signal to the DCU or server informing that the stack is getting lower and that refill may be needed some time soon; for instance notification to the janitor to include this dispenser in the coming service round; server may transmit information to a device operated by the janitor, e.g. in a simple form as a text message to a mobile phone or smart phone; however, it should be noted that special software to be executed in the device of the janitor may be developed for more complex handling of refill and service interval operations; for instance graphical display of each washroom and which dispensers that needs to be refilled and so on; detecting identification information of a product, to communicate this to a central unit, and arranged to vary a dispensing parameter, such as the amount to dispense; server 1001 may be arranged to execute a number of different operations depending on configuration of the system, such as analysis of SCU or DCU signals for determining current level in each dispenser, identify product quality, identify each SCU and corresponding dispenser together with geographical location, keeping track of an inventory, generating reports, transmitting a signal, e.g. a text message, to a user equipment 1002 issued to the janitor for indicating refill of dispenser at a location); and
a message system configured to generate a message including the instructions for the respective washroom facility and deliver the instructions to a maintenance personnel servicing the respective washroom facility (pars. 17, 59-61, and Fig. 10: determining a cause of action, for instance when the level is getting below a certain level information about this may be transmitted from the server to for instance a janitor in charge of servicing the washroom that refill is needed on the next service round or if the level is below a threshold that refill is needed immediately and the janitor may make an extra service round to the washroom; server may transmit information to a device operated by the janitor, e.g. in a simple form as a text message to a mobile phone or smart phone; however, it should be noted