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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 29–31, 33, 37–39 and 42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 0/08/2026.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To advance prosecution, it will be assumed that Applicant means a valve controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1–17, 19 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veros et al. (US PGPub 20200299941 A1) in view of Thea et al. (WO 2014105223 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Veros discloses an electronic faucet (10) comprising: a spout (12); a fluid passageway (28c–28e) supported by the spout (12); a valve assembly (50) including an electrically operable valve positioned to control fluid flow through the fluid passageway (28c–28e); a valve controller (24) operative to control the electrically operable valve (Para. 25, where the valve controller is the solenoid) but does not disclose a scheduler.
Thea teaches a scheduler (Para. 17, where the electronic timer system is the scheduler) in communication with the valve controller (Paras. 115–116) in order to prevent manual activation (Para. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the faucet of Veros with a scheduler as taught by Thea in order to have the capability to control the time in which the valve can be actuated.
Per the Veros–Thea combination, Thea’s scheduling capability is integrated into Veros’ controller.
The Veros–Thea combination teaches the scheduler (Thea Para. 17 electronic timer system) configured to receive user input to schedule set features of the electronic faucet (Veros 10/Thea Para. 17), thereby defining different modes of operation (Thea Para. 17); and a wireless control module (Veros 200) in communication with the valve controller (Veros 24) and the scheduler (Thea Para. 59 and Veros Fig. 2 illustrates the connection between the wireless control module and the valve controller), the wireless control module (Veros 200) including a receiver configured to receive wireless signals from a remote transmitter (Veros 250 and Para 53) and communicate with the valve controller (Veros 24) and the scheduler to control operation of the electrically operable valve based on scheduled set features (Thea Para. 59).
Regarding Claim 2, the Veros–Thea combination teaches a solenoid valve including a solenoid coil (Veros 80) and a moveable valve member operably coupled to the moveable valve member (Veros Para. 25 where a valve inherently has a valve member).
Regarding Claim 3, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the valve controller (Veros 24) includes a circuit board (Veros 40) coupled to the valve assembly (Veros 50) and a processor (Veros 42) mounted to the circuit board (Veros Fig. 2) to control the solenoid valve (Veros 22).
Regarding Claim 4, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the receiver (Veros 250) comprises a wireless chip (Veros Para. 53) configured to communicate with a wireless network (Veros Para. 53).
Regarding Claim 5, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the remote transmitter comprises at least one of a smart phone, a tablet or a dedicated remote user interface (Veros Para. 64) in wireless communication with the receiver (Veros 250 and Para. 53).
Regarding Claim 6, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the wireless control module (Veros 200) includes a body (Veros 60) defining a waterway (Veros Fig. 4) in fluid communication with the valve assembly (Veros 50 and Para. 38).
Regarding Claim 7, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the wireless control module (Veros 200) further includes a flow sensor (Veros 256) received within the waterway (Veros Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 8, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the valve controller (Veros 24) controls the electronically operable valve to dispense a predetermined amount of water based on input from the flow sensor (Veros 256 and Para. 55).
Regarding Claim 9, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the valve controller (Veros 24) monitors water usage based on input from the flow sensor (Veros 256 and Para. 55).
Regarding Claim 10, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the flow sensor (Veros 256) comprises a magnetic flow turbine (Veros 256 and Para. 55).
Regarding Claim 11, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the wireless control module (Veros 200) further includes a temperature sensor (Veros 264) received within the flow passage (Veros 204) and in communication with the wireless controller (Veros 224 and Para. 56).
Regarding Claim 12, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the body of the wireless control module (Veros 200) is releasably coupled between an outlet of the valve assembly (Veros 50) and the spout (Veros 12 and Fig. 3, where the wireless control module is secured by coupler 71b).
Regarding Claim 13, the Veros–Thea combination teaches wherein a cable (Veros 55) electrically connects the wireless control module (Veros 200) with the controller (Veros 24).
Regarding Claim 14, the Veros–Thea combination teaches wherein the receiver is a transceiver (Veros 250) supported on a printed circuit board (Veros 240 and Para. 53).
Regarding Claim 15, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the set features include a holiday mode (Thea Para. 115).
Regarding Claim 16, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the holiday mode is configured to restrict use of the electronic faucet (Veros 10) during a religious holiday (Thea Para. 14).
Regarding Claim 17, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the holiday mode is a Sabbath mode includes the settings of full feature during non-Sabbath, and restricted feature during Sabbath (Thea Para. 14).
Regarding Claim 19, the Veros–Thea combination teaches the electronic faucet (Veros 10) includes a light at a base of the electronic faucet (Veros 29).
Regarding Claim 28, the Veros–Thea combination teaches wherein geographic location information is communicated with the wireless control module wherein the valve controller (Veros 50) operates the electrically operable valve in response to the geographic location information (Thea Para. 65 teaches the geographic information to the control module and Veros 50).
Claim(s) 18, 21, 23 and 25–26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veros et al. (US PGPub 20200299941 A1) in view of Thea et al. (WO 2014105223 A1), in further view of Bailey (US PGPub 20180313714 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the Veros–Thea combination does not teach the scheduler communicates with the valve controller to determine the setting to be inactive during the holiday mode.
Bailey teaches the valve controller (40) to determine the setting to be inactive during the holiday mode in order to shut off the water supply (Para. 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve controller of the Veros–Thea combination with a capability to determine a holiday mode and shut off the water as taught by Bailey in order to prevent water waste.
Per the Veros–Thea–Bailey combination Bailey’s controller capability to determine a holiday mode and shut off the water is integrated in Veros’ valve controller.
Regarding Claim 21, the Veros–Thea–Bailey combination teaches the set feature includes an aging-in-place mode (Bailey, Paras. 111–112, where the valve controller (40) has a predetermined period in which it expects flow. Should that time be exceeded an alarm is issued).
Regarding Claim 23, the Veros–Thea–Bailey combination teaches the valve controller (Veros 24) is configured to detect and report a problem after a predetermined amount of time has lapsed since the last use of the faucet (Veros 10 and Bailey, Paras. 111–112, where the valve controller (40) has a predetermined period in which it expects flow. Should that time be exceeded an alarm is issued).
Regarding Claim 25, the Veros–Thea–Bailey combination teaches the set features include a freeze protection mode (Bailey 183).
Regarding Claim 26, the Veros–Thea–Bailey combination teaches the scheduler (Thea Para. 17 electronic timer system) is configured to communicate with the wireless control module (Veros 200) to monitor a local weather forecast (Bailey Para. 45).
Claim(s) 20, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veros et al. (US PGPub 20200299941 A1) in view of Thea et al. (WO 2014105223 A1), in further view of Allen et al. (USPN 7979928 B2).
Regarding Claim 20, the Veros–Thea combination does not teach the set features include a night light control mode for the light based on time-of-day.
Allen teaches a night light (44) control mode in order to alert the user as to the location of the faucet (Col. 6, Lines 11–25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the faucet of the Veros–Thea combination with a nightlight as taught by Allen in order to prevent injury to the user.
The recitation “for the light based on time-of-day” is seen as intended use of the nightlight. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. (MPEP §2114.II).
Regarding Claim 22, the Veros–Thea–Allen combination teaches the scheduler (Thea Para. 17, where the electronic timer system is the scheduler) is configured to monitor time lapses between uses of the faucet (Veros 10 and Thea Para. 17, where the time lapse is the requisite time of day).
Regarding Claim 24, the Veros–Thea–Allen combination teaches the valve controller (Veros 24) reports a location of the user (Veros Para. 28) to a predetermined entity (Veros Paras. 28 and 37, where the predetermined entity is the light device 59).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veros et al. (US PGPub 20200299941 A1) in view of Thea et al. (WO 2014105223 A1), in further view of Bailey (US PGPub 20180313714 A1), in further view of Fletcher (USPN 10145090 B2).
Regarding Claim 27, the Veros–Thea–Bailey combination does not teach the scheduler is configured to communicate with the valve controller to activate the valve assembly to supply a sufficient flow of water to prevent the spout from freezing.
Fletches teaches a processor (113) that is configured to communicate with the valve controller (Col. 2, Lines 30–37, where “[t]he valve 110 is configured to respond to specific instructions given by the processor and where the element that receives the response is the valve controller) to activate the valve assembly (110) in order to prevent freezing (Col. 1, Lines 6–8 and Col. 3, Lines 41–51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scheduler of the Veros–Thea–Bailey combination with a freeze protection capability as taught by Fletches in order to prevent the pipe from freezing and thus, damaging the piping.
The recitation “to supply a sufficient flow of water to prevent the spout from freezing” is seen as intended use of the scheduler. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. (MPEP §2114.II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jost et al. (US PGPub 20040143898 A1) discloses a proximity sensor for a faucet. Moskowitz (US PGPub 20210381723 A1) discloses programming a faucet during the Sabbath.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angelisa L. Hicks whose telephone number is 571-272-9552 and email is Angelisa.Hicks@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 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 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.
/Angelisa L. Hicks/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights