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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 6/30/26 has been entered.
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 23 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.
In claim 23, there is insufficient support for operating a toilet (or a chemical dispenser of a toilet) based on a weather temperature threshold. It appears that claim 23 was originally meant to depend from an independent claim directed to a “water appliance”. Claim 23 previously specified that a water circulation pump (rather than a toilet or a chemical dispenser of a toilet) was activated based on weather temperature. Note that the specification discloses water appliances other than a toilet that may operate based on weather temperature. (For the purpose of applying prior art, it will be assumed that claim 23 is directed to the embodiment which utilizes a circulation pump rather than a toilet.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by WO 2017/106445 A1 (hereinafter “SDB”), which discloses:
15. A toilet comprising:
at least one valve (216) configured to direct water toward or away from the toilet (216 is a flush valves in the illustrated toilet);
a network device (1100) configured to passively monitor wireless signals to determine a real-time occupancy level (1104, 1106); and
a controller (232, 224, 226) configured to compare real-time occupancy level to an occupancy threshold and generate a command for the at least one valve (e.g., para. 0020, 0150) to initiate a chemical dispenser in a tank of the toilet in response to the real-time occupancy level exceeding the threshold (consistent with the intended effect, SDB’s toilet valve is capable of initiating a chemical dispenser in a tank of the toilet, such as a cleansing tablet that could be located in the toilet tank).
16. The toilet of claim 15, wherein the command for the at least one valve provides water to a tank (when the toilet tank refills, in response to and after the flush command).
17. The toilet of claim 15, wherein the command for the at least one valve provides water to a toilet bowl (flushing the toilet sends water from the toilet tank to the toilet bowl).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 18-23 (23 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (KR 10-2014-0137356) in view of SDB.
1. A system comprising:
a water circulation device including a recirculation pump (316) associated with the indoor space; and
a controller (3190) configured to 3175, 3275, or 3375], and the desired setpoint, condensation sensor, occupant sensor, vacant temperature set point, and other inputs all affect pump speed or water flow. In many implementations, these determinations can be made by the controller component of the zone pump module…”, examiner emphasis).
As explained in the reproduced passage above, Fischer’s disclosed controller makes a determination to generate a command for the operational adjustments of the pump speed in order to meet cooling / heating and efficiency needs, and even discloses an occupancy sensor, but does not specifically discuss the controller to compare a plurality of connections for mobile devices in an indoor space to determine a real-time occupancy level of the indoor space and compare this to an occupancy threshold in such determinations. However SDB teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to make a similar operational determination using a controller that compares a plurality of connections for mobile devices in an indoor space detected by a network device to an occupancy threshold (see the analysis of claim 15 above). To account for the number of occupants in the operational adjustments that Fischer’s controller produces for Fischer’s circulation pump (as already suggested by Fischer’s mention of an “occupancy sensor”), it would have been obvious to use Fischer’s controller to also compare a plurality of connections of mobile devices in the indoor space as detected by a network device to an occupancy threshold, as similarly taught by SDB.
Regarding claim 18, during the normal and usual operation of Fischer’s system as modified by SDB, the claimed method steps would necessarily be performed.
Regarding claims 19-20, the use of user-set thresholds and historical data to determine a threshold was well-known in the art before the effective filing date (official notice; taken as admitted prior art because Applicant did not traverse the prior assertion of well-known status), and it would have been obvious to use the same with Fischer’s system in order to control Fischer’s system. (For example, even SDB at para. 0117 discloses the use of user inputs and historical data to determine a similar threshold, although in a different embodiment which compares water pressure rather than occupancy.)
Regarding claims 21-23, because Fischer’s system interfaces directly with outside air, it would have been obvious to use a well-known feedback loop based on outside (weather) air temperature (to identify outside temperature, and compare it to a threshold) (taken as admitted prior art because Applicant did not traverse the prior assertion of well-known status) in the operational adjustments of Fischer’s controller .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that SDB does not disclose a chemical dispenser in a tank of the toilet. In response, claim 15 requires “a controller configured to … generate a command for the at least one valve to initiate a chemical dispenser in a tank of the toilet”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that the chemical dispenser of this limitation is recited as an intended use of the valve, and therefore that this limitation reads on a controller that generates a command for a valve, where the valve is capable of initiating a chemical dispenser (such as a cleansing tab in a toilet tank). See MPEP 2114 regarding the treatment of intended use limitations in apparatus claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Fisher and SDB references individually (Remarks, pp. 7-8), 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).
Applicant’s argument that “[e]ven if one were to conceptually combine these disparate references [Fischer and SDB], the resulting system would merely be an HVAC pump controlled by traditional temperature sensors operating alongside a toilet flush valve controlled by mobile device detection” relies on a fundamental mischaracterization of the obviousness rejection. The rejection relies on a modification of Fisher’s controller to change an input to the controller and a comparison performed by the controller (as taught by SDB), not on the use of SDB’s flush valve alongside Fischer’s recirculation pump.
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 WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
8/5/26
Prosecution Insights