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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 11/14/2024 has been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2, “selects” should be --is able to select-- or something similar to avoid potential method type steps being claimed in the apparatus claim. See MPEP2173.05(p)
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 (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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty et al. (U.S. 9,632,514) in view of Rosko et al. (U.S. 9,919,939).
Marty discloses a shower system comprising: a shower fitting (50) having a discharge outlet (34); at least one electrically operable valve (20, see col. 1, ll. 45-50 describing electrical operation and electric motor or solenoid drive 294) adapted to be coupled with a water supply and in fluid communication with the shower fitting (fig. 1), the at least one electrically operable valve being operable to control water flow from the water supply to the shower fitting (col. 4, ll. 54-62); a micro-controller including a processor (44) in communication with the at least one electrically operable valve wherein the micro-controller controls the operation of the at least one electrically operable valve (col. 5, ll. 7-18) and wherein the at least one electrically operable valve and the micro-controller are adapted to be coupled with a source of electrical power (45); an electrical power storage device (388), the electrical power storage device being coupled with the micro-controller and the at least one electrically operable valve and configured to supply electrical power to the micro-controller and the at least one electrically operable valve upon loss of electrical power from the source of electrical power (col. 13, ll. 56-67, coupled with both in order to continue operation of the valve for the 2 minutes and then close the valve); and wherein the processor is configured to detect the loss of electrical power and, upon detecting the loss of electrical power, continues operation of the shower system for a preselected time period and, upon the expiration of the preselected time period, closes the at least one electrically operable valve and thereby terminates the flow of water to the shower fitting (col. 13, ll. 56-67).
While Marty necessarily has some type of sensing means to detect the loss of electrical power (see col. 13, ll. 56-58), Marty does not appear to explicitly disclose a sensor disposed in an electrical line supplying electrical power to the at least one electrically operable valve and configured to detect electrical current in the electrical line, the sensor being in communication with the micro-controller or the operation continuing for the preselected time based on the signal received from the sensor.
Rosko teaches it was known in the art to have a power sensor (140) in an electrical line (see fig. 7, leading from external power supply 146) that detects power levels (col. 15, ll. 11-28, col. 26, ll. 37-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marty by having a sensor in the electrical line to detect power levels as taught by Rosko as Marty discloses sensing of the power level but is silent as to the details of the sensor and a sensor in the electrical line provides for a direct and reliable means of sensing the power.
Regarding claim 4, Marty as modified further discloses wherein the electrical power storage device comprises at least one of a capacitor, a super capacitor, a disposable battery and/or a rechargeable battery (9v battery, which is seen to be disposable, see col. 13, ll. 50-52).
Regarding claim 8, Marty as modified further discloses wherein the at least one electrically operable valve includes a solenoid actuator (col. 11, ll. 15-18).
Regarding claim 9, Marty as modified further discloses wherein the at least one electrically operable valve includes an electrical motor actuator (col. 11, ll. 15-18).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty in view of Rosko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmitt et al. (U.S. 7,584,898).
Marty as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the at least one electrically operable valve comprising a first valve and second valve, the first valve being disposed between the shower fitting and a cold water supply, and the second valve being disposed between the shower fitting and a supply of hot water, rather, Marty has a single mixing valve (20) that connects to the hot and cold water supplies (22, 26) and is disposed between the shower fitting and the hot and cold water supplies (see fig. 1).
Schmitt teaches it was known in the art to have a first valve (30) and second valve (38), the first valve being disposed between a downstream supply to a consumer and a cold water supply (see fig. 4, between 32 and 68), and the second valve being disposed between a downstream supply to a consumer and a supply of hot water (see fig. 4, between 42 and 68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Marty by having two valves, one for the cold water line and one for the hot water line, as taught by Schmitt in order to be able to individually control each supply line (from the cold source and from the hot source) and also, if a leaks occurs, be able to selectively turn off either the hot line or the cold line individually while the other line is still able to operate.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty in view of Rosko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klicpera (U.S. 2009/0106891).
Marty as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the sensor configured to detect the voltage of the electrical current in the electrical line.
Klicpera teaches it was known in the art to have a sensor that detects power by numerous different means, including a current sensor, or electrical voltage sensor (see para. 92, the first six lines).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Marty by having the sensor sense the voltage of the line as taught by Klicpera as Klicpera teaches that different types of power sensors (such as current sensors, voltage sensors, etc.) are known alternative functional equivalents and can reliably detect the power in the electrical line and potential quality issues.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty in view of Rosko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (U.S. 2022/0008593).
Marty as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses a user interface (main user interface 14 including touch screen 399).
Marty does not appear to disclose the preselected time period being selectable by the user.
Smith teaches it was known in the art to have a user adjustable timer (112) for a water dispenser that can change timer programs to be lengthened or shortened (para. 60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Marty by having the user interface allow for a user to be able to select/adjust the elected time period as taught by Smith in order to allow a user to choose the duration the valve stays open during battery operation, for instance, a user could select less than the 2 minutes disclosed in Marty to conserve battery.
Regarding claim 11, Marty as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the processor being configured to allow the operational setting of the at least one valve to be changed during the preselected time period following the loss of electrical power.
Smith teaches it was known in the art to have a user adjustable timer (112) for a water dispenser that can change timer programs to be lengthened or shortened (para. 60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Marty by having the user interface allow for a user to be able to select/adjust the elected time period at any point in time, such as before showering, during the shower and operating on normal power, or while operating on battery power as taught by Smith in order to allow a user to choose the duration the valve stays open during battery operation, for instance, a user could select less than the 2 minutes disclosed in Marty to conserve battery and/or allow the user to close the valve earlier than the program is set to run.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty in view of Rosko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coston et al. (U.S. 2013/0218106).
Marty in view of Rosko discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose the processor being configured to not allow the operational setting of the at least one valve to be changed during the preselected time period following the loss of electrical power.
Coston teaches it was known to have a valve system with a similar touch screen that can be powered down to conserve battery power (see para. 51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Marty by powering down the touch screen upon using the battery as taught by Coston (and thus, as the touch screen does not have power, no operational settings of the valve will be able to be changed while running on battery) in order to conserve the battery power that is operating the valve to ensure maximum power is being directed to the valve (see para. 51 of Coston).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marty in view of Rosko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolf (U.S. 4,617,497).
Marty as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the processor is configured to return to a normal operating mode without closing the at least one electrically operable valve if the sensor detects restoration of electrical power during the preselected time period.
Wolf teaches it was known in the art to allow a transition from battery operation resulting from a power failure back to normal power line operation upon without interruption (col. 2, ll. 64 – col. 3, ll. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Marty such that resumption of the normal operating mode can be made without closing the valve (the teaching of Wolf in col. 3, ll. 5-10 stating if the power failure is less than the predetermined period, current can be restored and there is no interruption, and interruption being a closing of the valve in Marty) if the sensor detects restoration of power during the preselected time period as taught by Wolf in order to be able to resume normal operation of the valve without interruption of the shower by closing of the valve upon transitioning from battery supply back to normal power operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 6, while the prior art of record is seen to allow a user to select from a list of options for the predefined duration of battery operation (see the Smith teaching above), the prior art does not fairly teach or disclose wherein the longest delay period selectable by the user is less than a maximum delay period defined by the capacity of the electrical power storage device. Any such teaching would require further modification to the modifying reference and is not seen to be obvious absent impermissible hindsight bias. Regarding claim 12, while the monitoring of a charge level of an electrical storage device is notoriously old and well known, and not allowing an operational setting of the valve to be changed during the preselected time period is known per the teaching of Coston above, the prior art is not seen to further disclose or teach not allowing an operational setting of the valve to be changed during the preselected time period when the charge level falls below a predefined threshold. Any such teaching of the above limitations would require numerous additional references and is not seen to be obvious absent impermissible hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foster (U.S. 5,954,069) discloses a handwash apparatus with battery backup, a power supply unit, and solenoid valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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 supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753