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 Amendment
This action is responsive to communication filed on 12/10/2025. Claims 1-20 remain pending, with claims 1, 3, and 6 currently amended.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-5, 7-9, and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,250,601 (hereinafter Kolar) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0167123 (hereinafter Allard, III).
Regarding claim 1, Kolar discloses a connected sanitaryware system (fig. 12B), comprising a plurality of sanitaryware fixtures (1200, 1202, 1204, 1226, 1228, 1230); an infrared sensor (1208, 1210, 1212, 1232, 1234, 1236) located on a flush valve assembly of each of the sanitaryware fixtures (fig. 12B) and a control system comprising a controller (1224) in electrical communication with the infrared sensor (col. 10, ln. 53-59); wherein the controller is configured to communicate with a computing device directly and/or via a gateway (col. 16, ln. 13-16), the control system is configured to collect data from the infrared sensor (col. 24, ln. 63-65), the control system comprises a dashboard (control panel/computer screen) having visual modules (warning light) configured to monitor, display, and analyze the data, the dashboard configured to be employed on the computing device, and the dashboard is configured to allow a user to view and control settings of the plurality of sanitaryware fixtures (col. 16, ln. 13-16), the settings include a user detection interval (“However, since the user 1216 does not remain in the detection zone of the first urinal 1200 for a sufficiently long period of time, he does not trigger a flushing” col. 22, ln. 10-12), a delay between the user detection and a flush (“In another approach to determining when the user leaves the sensor field 610 after detecting his presence, the radar 600 may require that the absence of the user be indicated for a predetermined amount of time, for example 3 seconds.” Col. 12, ln. 13-16); a duration a flush valve is open during a flush (“The controller may be configured to adjust the volume of water flushed through the toilet according to the volume of waste detected. This has the advantage that a reduced flush volume may be used where the waste volume is small, thus saving water. This also has the advantage that a single large flush may be used to remove large amounts of waste, where a user may previously have used two standard flushes.” Col. 16, ln. 43-49), and a distance to which the infrared sensor measures (“The detector may also be range-gated by the analyzer 412 in order to select the detection of signals from a particular "shell" at a given separation from the transmitting optics, in a manner similar to that described above for the UWB radar. If the detector 410 and analyzer 412 are sufficiently fast, then range-gating may not be necessary. It may also be advantageous to have a background signal that can be subtracted from the return signal, so as to remove information on stationary objects, such as walls, doors and the like” col. 10, ln. 65-col. 11, ln. 7).
Kolar shows the computing device has a computer screen but fails to show it is a mobile computing device selected from a laptop computer, a mobile phone, or a tablet. Attention is turned to Allard, III which shows using a laptop or mobile phone is known in the art for monitoring and controlling plumbing fixtures remotely (par. 77). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to utilize a laptop or mobile phone as having the computer screen of Kolar as such portable devices are known in the art to be suitable for monitoring systems as evidenced by the teachings of Allard, III.
Regarding claim 2, Kolar discloses the sanitaryware fixtures comprise a plurality of toilets (1226, 1228, 1230) or a plurality of urinals (1200, 1202, 1204).
Regarding claim 3, Kolar discloses the settings include a duration a flush valve is open during a low volume flush or a high-volume flush measures (col. 21, ln. 48-57).
Regarding claim 4, Kolar discloses the controller is configured to communicate directly with the computing device (col. 16, ln. 13-16).
Regarding claim 5, Kolar discloses a technician may initiate an action via the computing device (col. 16, ln. 13-16).
Regarding claim 7, Kolar fails to show the data comprises a battery status. Attention is turned to Allard, III which shows battery power as a desirable restroom appliance data set (par. 54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to receive battery status data in the system of Kolar to ensure power is being delivered appropriately as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings of Allard, III.
Regarding claim 8, Kolar discloses the data comprises a number of flushes over a time period (col. 25, ln. 8-52).
Regarding claim 9, Kolar shows the system is configured to communicate with a “smart home” (col. 27, In. 28 — 33) but fails to show the controller is configured to communicate with a cloud/server via a gateway. Attention is turned to Allard, Ill which teaches that configuring controllers to communicate with a server via a central controller or when using a wireless system via a gateway is a common setup (par. 41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to utilize any well-known computer control system, and to select a communication route with a server via a gateway falls well within the purview of the invention as evidenced by the teachings of Allard, Ill mentioned above.
Regarding claim 10, Kolar discloses the data comprises a water consumption over a time period (col. 23, 54-63).
Regarding claim 11, Kolar discloses the computing device is configured to send instructions to the controller and the controller is configured to initiate a sanitaryware action in response (col. 22, ln. 62-63).
Regarding claim 12, under the modification set forth above, Allard, III shows the cloud/server is configured to send instructions to a controller via the gateway, and the controller is configured to initiate a sanitaryware action in response (see par. 77 — 78).
Regarding claim 13, Kolar discloses the data comprises a number of high volume flushes and a number of low volume flushes over a time period (col. 16, ln. 38-49).
Regarding claim 14, Kolar discloses the data comprises a number of second flushes over a time period (col. 22, ln. 62-col. 23, ln. 10).
Regarding claim 15, Kolar discloses the data comprises an average number of flushes over a time period (col. 25, ln. 33-52).
Regarding claim 16, Kolar discloses the control system is configured to analyze, aggregate, store, and log the data (col. 27, ln. 57-64).
Regarding claim 17, Kolar discloses the control system is configured to provide a daily, monthly, or yearly status of an individual sanitaryware fixture or of the plurality of sanitaryware fixtures (col. 25, ln. 33-52).
Regarding claim 18, Kolar discloses the control system is configured to allow a technician to monitor the status of the sanitaryware fixtures remotely with the computing device (col. 16, ln. 13-16; col. 27, ln. 28-33).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar and Allard, III as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 9,708,805 (hereinafter Seggio).
Regarding claim 6, Kolar fails to show the settings include a frequency of a sanitaryware automatic rinse. Attention is turned to Seggio which teaches a setting in a flush system for periodically automatically rinsing a plumbing fixture to ensure adequate flushing of the lines to prevent mineral buildup or clogs (col. 3, ln. 61-col. 4, ln. 2; col. 4, ln. 56-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kolar to include a setting option of a frequency of a sanitaryware automatic rinse to minimize line build-up or blockages due to variations of fixture use as evidenced by the teachings of Seggio.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar and Allard, III as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0119142 (hereinafter Yenni).
Regarding claim 19, Kolar fails to show the data comprises an average daily usage. Attention is turned to Yenni which shows a control and monitoring system for a bathroom that collects data for daily usage for toilet fixtures (par. 160). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to collect data on average daily usage to help a maintenance or cleaner know how often a fixture needs attention as evidenced by the teachings of Yenni.
Regarding claim 20, Kolar fails to show the data comprises a last date and time of the computing device communication with the controller. Attention is turned to Yenni which shows creating data with date and time stamps to monitor the status of a fixture in a restroom (par. 145). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to use data based on a last date and time of the computing device communication with the controller to monitor the status of a fixture in a restroom as evidenced by the teachings of Yenni.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights