DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 9 July 2026. Claims 1-10 and 14-17 have been amended. Claims 11-13 have been cancelled. Claims 18-22 are newly added. Claims 1-10 and 14-22 are pending in this application.
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 arguments, see Remarks, pg. 7, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to objected claims 1-10, 14, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 9 July 2026. The objections of claims 1-10, 14, and 15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 7-8, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 9 July 2026. The rejections of claims 8-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 8-10, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-10 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 9 July 2026. The rejections of claims 1-10 and 14-17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 10, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 9 July 2026. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 10, filed 9 July 2026, with respect to rejected claims 3, 6, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 9 July 2026. The rejections of claims 3, 6, 16, and 17 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 14, 15, 17, and 22 stand objected to and claim 21 stands rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Examiner’s Note: There is no power of attorney on file with the Office, thus a telephone call was not made to the applicant to resolve the outstanding issues as set forth below. The applicant is respectfully encouraged to review MPEP 402.02(a) pertaining to appointment of a power of attorney filed on or after September 16, 2012.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 14, 15, 17, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the determined hardness” in line 10 and “the hardness” in line 13. The claims recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims the same term should be used for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the determined hardness” in line 10 should read “the hardness”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 3 includes the grammatical issue of “… the obtaining the user feature …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… the obtaining of the user feature …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 7 includes the grammatical issue of “… the determining the hardness of the bathing water …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… the determining of the hardness of the bathing water …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 8 includes the grammatical issue of “… the generating the control instruction for the water softener …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… the generating of the control instruction for the water softener …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 9 includes the grammatical issue of “… the generating the control instruction for the water softener …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… the generating of the control instruction for the water softener …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 10 includes the grammatical issue of “… the generating the control instruction for the water softener …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… the generating of the control instruction for the water softener …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 14 includes the grammatical issue of “… the determining the target temperature of the bathing water …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… the determining of the target temperature of the bathing water …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 15 includes the grammatical issue of “… the adjusting the first temperature …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… the adjusting of the first temperature …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 17 recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” in lines 1-2 and “the computer readable storage medium” in line 2. The claims recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims the same term should be used for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the computer readable storage medium” in line 2 should read “the non-transitory computer readable storage medium”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 22 recites:
… the target temperature of the bathing water for the target user is obtained based on a fourth correspondence, the hardness of the bathing water for the target user, and the first temperature, wherein the fourth correspondence is established between a first temperature of the bathing water, a hardness of the bathing water, and a target temperature of the bathing water.
There are no recitations of “a first correspondence”, “a second correspondence”, and “a third correspondence” in parent claims 1 and 14 related to “the fourth correspondence” in claim 22. Suggested claim language:
… the target temperature of the bathing water for the target user is obtained based on a correspondence, the hardness of the bathing water for the target user, and the first temperature, wherein the correspondence is established between a first temperature of the bathing water, a hardness of the bathing water, and a target temperature of the bathing water.;
and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0192652 A1 (instant application) discloses:
Specifically, a user may set a first temperature of his/her corresponding bathing water through the cloud, and then, after a user identification of a target user is obtained, a corresponding first temperature is found in the cloud based on the user identification. (pg. 4, par. [0098])
Claim 21 recites:
“… the first temperature is set by a user through a cloud, …” (in lines 2)
In summary, claim 21 recites “a cloud” and the specification discloses “the cloud”, wherein the limitation of “a cloud” in claim 21 appears to recite a particular instance of a dedicated computing environment (e.g. a private cloud) and “the cloud” in the specification appears to recite a global networked computing environment. Hence, the only support for of “a cloud” is found in claims as filed on 9 July 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 14, 15, 17, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections as set forth above.
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to obviate the rejection as set forth above.
Claims 2, 4-6, 16 and 18-20 are allowed.
Reasons for Indication of Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Foreign Patent Publications, U.S. Patent Publications and U.S. Patents; e.g. Chinese Patent Publication CN 110411025 A1 discloses a control method for a water heater with a water softening function; U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0086890 A1 discloses a system of household appliances is configured to provide services according to user identity; and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0357454 A1 discloses intelligent kitchen devices and intelligent bathroom devices that provide functions to a user in response to sensor data collected in relation to the user.
However, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, expressly or fairly suggest controlling a water softener to soften bathing water per a determined hardness for a target user, wherein the hardness is determined based on a user feature of the target user, in combination with controlling a water heater to heat the bathing water to a target temperature, wherein the target temperature is determined based on the user feature of the target user and the hardness of the bathing water.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to water treatment system/method and water delivery devices/systems.
U.S. Patent No. 11,408,616 B2 discloses a water heating system includes a water heater having a tank, an inlet line, and an outlet line, where the inlet line provides unheated water to the tank, and where the outlet line draws heated water from the tank.
U.S. Patent No. 11,886,208 discloses a faucet and control method using operator inputs.
U.S. Patent No. 12,252,831 B2 discloses determining a water hardness level (e.g., according to a predetermined reference table, formula, chart, graph, etc.) from a temperature of a volume of water.
U.S. Patent No. 12,330,973 B2 discloses a water treatment system centrally communicates and controls one or more water treatment devices to regulate a use of the one or more water treatment devices.
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 JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights