CTNF 18/812,466 CTNF 87471 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. 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 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. This application is a continuation application of U.S. application 15733859 filled 11/30/2020. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc. , 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents). DETAILED ACTION The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to application 18812466 filed 08/22/2024 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-4, 6-18 have been amended by preliminary amendment. Claim 5 has been canceled by preliminary amendment. Claims 1-4, 6-18 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows. Priority Examiner noted Applicant claim priority from App 15733859 filled 11/30/2020 which is 371 entry of PCT/US2019/034798 which in turn claims priority from Provisional 62/678363 filled 05/31/2018. IDS The information disclosure statement filed on 08/22/2024 and 10/27/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-2, 10-12, 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-9 of US Patent US 12099951 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent US 12099951 B2 recite substantially similar limitations as Claims 1-2,10-12,17-18 of the current Application, with the main difference being that Claims 1-9 of U .S. Patent No. US 12099951 B2 recite narrower limitations and concepts as Claims 1-2,10-12,17-18 of the current Application. Objection Claim 7 is objected for informally recting: …“ evaluating the operability data”… instead of … evaluating the operability level data… Claim 10 is objected for minimally reciting the grammatical incorrect: - “in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom fixture to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on an evaluation of the operability level data”, instead of - in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom fixture to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on an evaluation of the operability level data, Claim 17 is objected for minimally reciting the grammatical incorrect: - “ in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom component to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state” instead of - in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom component to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state. Clarification and/or correction is/are required. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-18 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 is independent and recites, among others: “ a functional sensor configured to generate operability level data ” […] “ in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, cause the controller to leave the washroom fixture in the normal operation state or put the washroom fixture into the disabled state, based on operability level data ”… Claim 1 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “ operability level data ” as subsequently recited at said independent Claim 1 relates back to “ operability level data ” as antecedently recited at said independent Claim 1. Claim 1 is recommended to be amended to recite, among others, as an example only: a functional sensor configured to generate operability level data […] in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, cause the controller to leave the washroom fixture in the normal operation state or put the washroom fixture into the disabled state, based on the operability level data … Claims 2-4,6-9 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 1. Claim 10 is independent and recites among other: - “ in response to determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event, directing the washroom fixture to enter an issue resolution state and then directing the washroom fixture to enter one of a normal operation state or a disabled state based on an evaluation of the operability level data after the issue resolution state” - “ in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom fixture to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on an evaluation of the operability level data ”. Claim 10 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “ an evaluation of the operability level data ” as subsequently recited in said independent claim 10 relates back to “ an evaluation of the operability level data” as antecedently recited in said independent claim 10. Claim 10 is recommended to be amended to recite, among others, and as example only: - in response to determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event, directing the washroom fixture to enter an issue resolution state and then directing the washroom fixture to enter one of a normal operation state or a disabled state based on an evaluation of the operability level data after the issue resolution state - in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom fixture to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on [[ an ]] the evaluation of the operability level data . Claims 11-16 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 10. Claim 17 is independent and similarly recites, among others: - “ in response to determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event, directing a washroom component in the washroom to enter one of the normal operation state or disabled state based on an evaluation of the first or the second operability level data after an issue resolution state ”; “ and ” - “ in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom component to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on an evaluation of the first or the second operability level data ”. Claim 17 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “ an evaluation of the first or the second operability level data ” as subsequently recited in said claim relates back to “ an evaluation of the first or the second operability level data” as antecedently recited in said claim. Claim 17 is recommended to be amended to recite among others, and as an example only: - in response to determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event, directing a washroom component in the washroom to enter one of the normal operation state or disabled state based on an evaluation of the first or the second operability level data after an issue resolution state ; and - in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom component to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on [[ an ]] the evaluation of the first or the second operability level data . Claim 18 is dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 17. Claims 4,11,14 are dependent and recite: “ a message to be sent to a washroom attendant ”, rendering each of said claims vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “ a message to be sent to a washroom attendant” as subsequently recited in Claims 4,11,14 relates back to “ a message to be sent to a washroom attendant ” as subsequently recited at parent independent Claims 1,10. Claims 4,11,14 are recommended to be amended to each recite, among others, and as an example only: [[ a ]] the message to be sent to [[a]] the washroom attendant, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-4, 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. First, Examiner points to MPEP 2111.04 II titled Contingent limitations ¶1: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Here, the contingent limitation of “ in response to determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event, directing the washroom fixture to enter an issue resolution state and then directing the washroom fixture to enter one of a normal operation state or a disabled state based on an evaluation of the operability level data after the issue resolution state” at Claim 10 is not required to be performed when “ determining the actionable event type is” not “ the automated resolution event” and the contingent limitation of “ in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom fixture to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on an evaluation of the operability level data” at Claim 10 is not required to be performed when “ in response to determining the action event type is” not “ the assisted resolution event”. Similarly, the contingent limitation of “ in response to determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event, directing a washroom component in the washroom to enter one of the normal operation state or disabled state based on an evaluation of the first or the second operability level data after an issue resolution state ” at Claim 17 is not required to be performed when “ in response to determining the actionable event type is” not “the automated resolution event”, and the contingent limitation “ in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event”, “directing the washroom component to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on an evaluation of the first or the second operability level data ” at Claim 17 is not required to be performed when “ in response to determining the action event type is ” not “ the assisted resolution event”. Next, the Examiner submits that no matter of the patentable weight of the aforementioned contingent limitations, the current Claims 1-4, 6-18 still recite, describe, or set forth the abstract Certain Method of Organizing Human activities grouping of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II, and reflected by “ determining ” “ high ” and “ low ” “ consumable product use ” for two items (independent Claim 17) as fundamental economic concepts, as well as “ accessing ” “ operability level data ”, for subsequent “ analysis ” to decide whether or not to provide “ assisted resolution or “ automated resolution” or let the item in “ normal operation state ” , (independent Claims 1,10,17), including “ directing a message to be sent to a ” “ attendant to service the ” item (Claims 1,4,11,14), as fundamental best practices and interactions of inspection, condition-based operation or maintenance or operator-driven reliability strategy through what appear here to be asset condition monitoring (i.e. operability level ) and/or tagging procedure (i.e. item being put on our-of order or “ disabled” status versus assisted resolution status, versus automated resolution status, versus “ normal operation” ). All these fall within the broad abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II ¶6, 4 th sentence clarifying that, certain activity between a person and a computer may still fall within the abstract " certain methods of organizing human activity ", and with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2 further clarifying that the term fundamental is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known, but rather as building block of business practice. Here, “accessing ” “ operability level data ”, for subsequent “ analysis ” to decide whether to provide “ assisted resolution or “ automated resolution”, (independent Claims 1,10,17), including “ directing a message to be sent to a ” “ attendant to service the ” “ product” (Claims 1,4,11,14), and “ wherein the issue resolution state comprises actuating the” item or “washroom fixture one or more times” at dependent Claim 6, “ wherein the predetermined time period or sequence for the issue resolution state comprises causing the toilet or the urinal to flush a specified number of times ” at dependent Claim 8 akin to a janitor assisting or mitigating by flushing the toilet multiple times, represent such building blocks of organizing human activities, set forth as inspection and condition-based operation, no matter of whether their automation or computerized implementation is old or well-known. In fact, in In re Bilski, judge Mayer, J. remarked that: “ Patents granted in the wake of State Street have ranged from the somewhat ridiculous to the truly absurd. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,851,117 (method of training janitors to dust and vacuum using video displays”. Here, similar to judge Mayer ’s remark in In re Bilski , the “ directing a message to be sent to a ” “ attendant to service the ” “ washroom fixture” (Claims 1,4,11,14), would fall under such grounds of patent ineligibility. Additionally or alternatively, Examiner finds that Claims 1-4, 6-18 can also be argued to recite, describe or set forth computer-aided yet still abstract cognitive, decision-making techniques (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2) with ensuing best practices (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A above) to further judge or decide, upon observation or inspection and evaluation, whether or not to put an item (here “ washroom fixture” ) in an out-of-order or “ disabled state”, a “ normal operation state ” or “ an issue resolution state” where a “ message ” [is] “ to be sent to an ” “ attendant to service the ” “ washroom fixture” as recited in similar forms throughout Claims 1-4, 6-18, including cognitive correlations “ determining high consumable product use from the washroom component ” [i.e. tissue or paper towel ”] “ dispenser ” and “ determining a low operational state for the washroom fixture ”; [i.e. toilet or urinal ] as recited at Claims 17-18, to put an out-of-order sign or “ disabled state” which is read in light of Original Specification ¶ [0037] 4 th sentence “ to prevent a user from putting (additional) bath tissue paper 105 in the clogged toilet 130 and making the clog worse ”. Examiner finds that such correlations or “ determining high consumable product use from the washroom component ” [i.e. tissue or paper towel ”] “ dispenser ” and “ determining a low operational state for the washroom fixture ”; [i.e. toilet or urinal ] at Claims 17-18, are not meaningfully different than the generating of first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical correlations, and organizing this information into a new form 1 , which as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I A iv still remain with the contours of the abstract exception. To be clear here, the “ accessing ” “ operability level data ”, for subsequent sensing or “ analysis ” to decide whether to provide “ assisted resolution or “ automated resolution”, (independent Claims 1,10,17), including “ directing a message to be sent to a ” “ attendant to service the ” “ product” (Claims 1,4,11,14), can be argued as an abstract example of collecting ( accessing ) information, analyzing it, and notifying about certain results of collection and analysis, in a manner not meaningfully different than Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,1353-54,119 USPQ2d 1739,1741-42 Fed Cir 2016, cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A ¶8. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2 is also clear that performing a mental process in a computerized environment does not preclude the claims to recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception. It follows that here, a computerized environment set forth by sensor(s) “ to generate ” “ operability level ” “ defining status of the ” “ product ” at independent Claims 1,10,17 would also not preclude said claims to recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception, when such sensor(s) would merely aid or replace what would otherwise be human visual observations on operability level of the product as set forth per independent Claims 1,10,17. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #3 is also clear that use of a tool, mechanism or computer to perform manual, cognitive or abstract processes also does not preclude the claims to recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception. Here, the cognitive, decision-making “ to modify an operation of the washroom fixture” to determine after communication with “ management” to place the item (i.e. “ washroom fixture” ) in a “ normal operation state ”, “ an issue resolution state ” and “ disabled ” or out-of-order “ state ” at independent Claim 1 would similarly represent use of a tool (here “ controller ”) to perform what would have otherwise been manual, cognitive or abstract decision making or best practice processes to put the washroom fixture (i.e. toilet or urinal ) (Claim 1), in the disabled or out-of-order state, normal state or resolution state, including flushing “one or more times” (Claim 6) / “ a specified number of times (Claim 8), or deciding it is “ not to flush” (Claim 9), for example, based upon an observation that the “ washroom fixture” (i.e. “ toilet ” or “ urinal ”) is “ partially clogged” (Claim 15) or “ fully clogged” (Claim 16). The Examiner rationale on the use of the computerized environment and the associated tools within the abstract, decision making and best practices, is again corroborated by Electric Power Group , 830 F.3d at 1351 and n1 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1, which, as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III D, demonstrated that a wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid was integral to an abstract idea. Looking closer at Electric Power Group supra , the Examiner finds its claims performed real-time performance monitoring of electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources , analyzing the data , and displaying the results. See'710 patent, col. 1, lines 27-30; id., col. 2, lines 43-49. For example, claim 12 of '710 patent read: A method of detecting events on an inter-connected electric power grid in real time over a wide area and automatically analyzing the events on the interconnected electric power grid, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of data streams, each of the data streams comprising sub-second, time stamped synchronized phasor measurements wherein the measurements in each stream are collected in real time at geographically distinct points over the wide area of the interconnected electric power grid, the wide area comprising at least two elements from among control are-as, transmission companies, utilities, regional reliability coordinators, and reliability jurisdictions; receiving data from other power system data sources, the other power system data sources comprising at least one of transmission maps, power plant locations, EMS/SCADA systems; receiving data from a plurality of non-grid data sources; detecting and analyzing event s in real-time from the plurality of data streams from the wide area based on at least one of limits, sensitivities and rates of change for one or more measurements from the data streams and dynamic stability metrics derived from analysis of the measurements from the data streams including at least one of frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles , damping , and oscillation modes , derived from the phasor measurements and the other power system data sources in which the metrics are indicative of events, grid stress , and/or grid instability , over the wide area; displaying the event analysis results and diagnoses of events and associated ones of the metrics from different categories of data and the derived metrics in visuals, tables, charts, or combinations thereof, the data comprising at least one of monitoring data, tracking data, historical data, prediction data, and summary data; displaying concurrent visualization of measurements from the data streams and the dynamic stability metrics directed to the wide area of the interconnected electric power grid; accumulating and updating the measurements from the data streams and the dynamic stability metrics, grid data, and non-grid data in real time as to wide area and local area portions of the interconnected electric power grid; and deriving a composite indicator of reliability that is an indicator of power grid vulnerability and is derived from a combination of one or more real time measurements or computations of measurements from the data streams and the dynamic stability metrics covering the wide area as well as non-power grid data received from the non-grid data source . Here, analogous to the Electric Power Group ’s receiving of time stamped synchronized phasor measurements and “ detecting and analyzing event s in real-time from the plurality of data streams from the wide area based on at least one of limits, sensitivities and rates of change for one or more measurements from the data streams and dynamic stability metrics derived from analysis of the measurements from the data streams including at least one of frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles , damping , and oscillation modes , derived from the phasor measurements and the other power system data sources in which the metrics are indicative of events, grid stress , and/or grid instability , over the wide area” , the current independent Claims 1,10,17 similarly “ access the operability level data” , (Claims 1,10,17) “ defining a status of the washroom fixture ” (Claims 1,10) / “ specifying consumable product use ” (Claim 17). Also here, similar to assessing “ grid vulnerability ” in “ Electric Power Group”, the current independent Claims 10,17 similarly “ analyze operability level data to determine an actionable event type for the washroom fixture ” “ wherein the actionable event type comprises an automated resolution event and an assisted resolution event ”. Thus, the current claims should be construed to recite, describe or set forth the abstract idea by similar rationales articulated by the Court in “ Electric Power Group” supra . This rationale was later echoed in TDE Petroleum Data Sols., Inc v. AKM Enter., Inc 657 Fed. Appx. 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Court found determining operation state of a well as an abstract idea: “ As we discussed at greater length in Electric Power, the claims of the '812 patent recite the what of the invention, but none of the how that is necessary to turn the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Electric Power [2016 BL 247416] 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13861 [2016 BL 247416], 2016 WL 4073318 at *4-5. Therefore, we find that claim 1 is patent-ineligible under § 101 ”. Following such legal precedents as articulated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the Examiner finds that determining operation state , be it for a well, borehole as in TDE Petroleum or for “ washroom fixture” (i.e. “ toilet or urinal” ) recited throughout Claims 1-4, 6-18, would follow a similar ineligibility path as that of the wide-area real-time performance monitoring system of power grid in Electric Power Group and/or determining well operation state in TDE Petroleum. Same rationale applies to the “washroom component ” (i.e. “ bath tissue ” or “ paper towel dispenser ”) at Claims 17-18. In abundance of caution, such level of automation and/or computerization will be more granularly tested at the subsequent steps below. For now, given preponderance of legal evidence, it is clear that the claims recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception. Step 2A prong one. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the additional elements is/are found to merely apply the already recited abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow it to field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)] upon which it is performed. Here, the “ controller ” at independent Claim 1 and “ functional” or “ operability ” “sensor” at independent Claims 1,10 the latter narrowed as “ water flow sensor or a flush valve sensor ” at dependent Claims 3,7,13, and similarly the first and second sensor(s) at independent Claim 17, even when construed beyond use of aids, computer environments and/or tools at prior step, and now raised to the level of additional elements, they still represent mere invocation of machinery or computer components to apply the aforementioned abstract mitigation processes or other existing processes which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. For example, MPEP 2106.05 (f)(2)(iii) finds that monitoring audit log data executed on a computer where the increased speed in the process comes from the capabilities of a computer represents such invocation of machinery to apply the abstract exception which does not integrate it into a practical application. Further, MPEP 2106.05(a) I corroborates that accelerating a process such as the one revealed above in analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes from the capabilities of the computer does not show improvement in actual technology or the computer itself. Also, MPEP 2106.05(a) I corroborates that mere automation of manual processes, also does not show improvement in computer functionality. Here, even when construed as additional computer-based elements, the “ controller ” and “ functional sensor” / “first” and “second” sensors, merely perform computerized or automated functions to assess or monitor audit data on “ operability level” of a “ washroom fixture ” which, as previously revealed, would have otherwise been observed by a human operator (i.e. “ attendant” or janitor) for subsequent, decision-making, and control to modify operation of the washroom fixture (independent Claim 1), including “ actuating the washroom fixture one or more times ” (dependent Claims 6,8), akin to pressing a lever or button to flush a toilet one or more times to clear a clog, or deciding “ to not flush” (dependent Claim 8). These automation of manual, cognitive and thus abstract processes, would come from controlling capabilities of the automation of the commuter itself, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii) and MPEP 2106.05(a) I, would merely represent invocation of computer elements and machinery (here controller ) to apply the abstract exception without providing an improvement in actual technology; thus still falling short to integrate said abstract exception into a practical application. Additionally and/or alternatively, given the high level of generality of the “ controller ” of independent Claim 1, to simply “ put” the “ washroom fixture” into the issue resolution state or the disabled state , or back to normal operation, Examiner reasons that, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(3), such computerized, controlled functionality would represent a generality of the abstract idea, which once again would not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Similarly, MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. cites the same Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A ., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as previously relied above, to state that limiting the combination of collecting, analyzing and notifying about certain results of collection and analysis, to a field of use, characterized or technological environment does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Thus here, narrowing the combination of assessing, sensing or analyzing and notifying about certain results of the collection and analysis, as previously identified, to a field of use or technological environment characterized by operation of a “ washroom fixture” (Claims 1-4,6-18) such as “ toilet ” or “ urinal ” (Claims 2,7-9,12,18) and an associated “ washroom component” (Claims 17-18) such as “ bath tissue or paper towel dispenser” (Claim 18) would similarly not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea and link use of abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment. Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II and carries over the findings tested above per MPEP 2106.05 (f),(h) to submit that the additional computer-based or machine-based elements also do not provide significantly more without having to rely on conventionality test. Even assuming arguendo, that further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional, computer or machine based elements, Examiner would point as evidence to the high level of generality of the additional elements read in light of: - Original Specification ¶ [0025] 3 rd sentence, reciting at high level: Example functional sensors 116 include a consumable product (e.g., product 105) level sensor, a water flow sensor, a flush valve sensor, and a motor current sensor . Also ¶ [0029] known Hall-Effect sensors. - Original Specification ¶ [0030], reciting at high level: “ The system 100 includes one or more controllers 133. A controller 133 is a device that modifies or changes the operational state of a washroom component. In some implementations, a controller 133 is or includes a data processing apparatus (e.g., microcontroller) that communicates with and controls certain features and functions of the washroom component. For example, the controller 133 can include (or control) an actuator to control a water flow valve 132 or a switch to control a motor 119 to manage the operation of the washroom component. A controller 133 can be co-located with a washroom component or remote to the washroom component. In some implementations, one controller 133 manages one washroom component. In other implementations, multiple controllers 133 manage the operational state of a washroom component. In yet other implementations, one controller 133 manages multiple washroom components” - Original Specification ¶ [0069] reciting at high level of generality: “Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer. Generally , a processor will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both. The essential elements of a computer are a processor for performing actions in accordance with instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data. Generally , a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled to receive data from or transfer data to, or both, one or more mass storage devices for storing data, e.g., magnetic, magneto-optical disks, or optical disks. However, a computer need not have such devices. Moreover, a computer can be embedded in another device, e.g., a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile audio or video player, a game console, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, or a portable storage device (e.g., a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive), to name just a few. Devices suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-volatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry” . - Original Specification ¶ [0072] reciting at high level of generality: “ While this specification contains many specific implementation details, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of any inventions or of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features specific to particular embodiments of particular inventions. Certain features that are described in this specification in the context of separate embodiments can also be implemented in combination in a single embodiment. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single embodiment can also be implemented in multiple embodiments separately or in any suitable subcombination . Moreover, although features may be described above as acting in certain combinations and even initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimed combination can in some cases be excised from the combination, and the claimed combination may be directed to a subcombination or variation of a subcombination. Similarly, while operations are depicted in the drawings in a particular order, this should not be understood as requiring that such operations be performed in the particular order shown or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations be performed, to achieve desirable results. In certain circumstances, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Moreover, the separation of various system components in the embodiments described above should not be understood as requiring such separation in all embodiments, and it should be understood that the described program components and systems can generally be integrated together in a single software product or packaged into multiple software products” . - Original Specification ¶ [0073] reciting at high level of generality: This written description does not limit the invention to the precise terms set forth. Thus, while the invention has been described in detail with reference to the examples set forth above, those of ordinary skill in the art may effect alterations, modifications and variations to the examples without departing from the scope of the invention . In conclusion, Claims 1-4,6-18 though directed to statutory categories (“ washroom fixture ” or machine (Claims 1-4,6-9), methods or processes (Claims 10-16,17-18)) they still recite, describe or set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong 1), with their additional, computer based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Thus, Claims 1-4, 6-18 are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or 102 (a)(2) or both , as being anticipated by : Grover et al, US 20180010322 A1 hereinafter Grover . As per , Claims 1,10 . “ A washroom fixture comprising” (Claim 1) : - “a functional sensor configured to generate operability level data for the washroom fixture defining a status of the washroom fixture ”; (Claim 1) (Grover ¶ [0016] 2 nd sentence: the sensor system include a transducer transmitting an ultrasonic signal and receiving a return signal. ¶ [0080]: noting the transmitter transmits ultrasonic signal from a mounted on a toilet bowl toward the contents of the toilet bowl; and the receiver receiving the ultrasonic signal by that determines ToF measurement of signal. ¶ [0085] 1 st -2 nd sentences: With continued reference to Fig.1, AFE 102 transmits a pulse to the sensor or ultrasonic transducer 100. The pulse causes the ultrasonic transducer 100 to resonate, thus emitting ultrasonic signal from transducer 100. Similar ¶ [0089] 6 th sentence: sensor (transducer 100) of signal processor 204 transmits the signal and receives response signal. ¶ [0098] 2 nd sentence: The system of Fig.5A include sensor or transducer 510, such as an ultrasonic transducer or piezo-ceramic transducer, described) ; “ and ” - “a controller configured to modify an operation of the washroom fixture ” (Claim 1) (Grover ¶ [0071] 2 nd sentence noting a valve that controls the flow of water into the toilet as a whole, not just into the toilet bowl. ¶ [0089] last sentence: water valve 230 adjusts the water volume and duration 216 to correspond to the bowl status. Similarly, ¶ [0008] last two sentences) , “wherein the washroom fixture has a normal operation state, an issue resolution state and a disabled state with the normal operation state being normal function of the washroom fixture ” (Claim 1) (Grover ¶ [0072] 2 nd -3 rd sentences: system reset may be automatic based on sensor system detecting a normal status of bowl and sending a normal ToF measurement to microcontroller. Alternatively, user may reset the system manually, with push button. Similarly, ¶ [0081] If algorithm applied by microcontroller indicates that bowl state is normal, the cycle is ended. however if determined bowl state is leak or high water or turbulence or similar microcontroller instructs at least one electromechanically operated valve that is in fluid communication with toilet bowl to move from open to closed position. valve remain closed until malfunction is identified &repaired and system is reset. The system may be reset automatically based on new ToF measurement indicating normal status or manually by user, as previously described) , “the issue resolution state being for performing maintenance on the washroom fixture ” (Claim 1) (Grover ¶ [0072] 1 st sentence, ¶ [0081] 3 rd sentence: enable malfunction to be discovered, repaired and the system reset. Also ¶ [0105] 2 nd sentence) “and the disabled state being for disabling the washroom fixture from functioning” (Claim 1) (Grover ¶ [0081] 3 rd sentence: valve remain closed until malfunction is identified and repaired and the system is reset) ; “ wherein the washroom fixture is communicatively coupled with a management system, the management system configured to access the operability level data, communicate with the controller and evaluate the operability level data to determine an actionable event type for the washroom fixture , wherein the actionable event type comprises an automated resolution event and an assisted resolution event, and the management system is further configured to” : (Claim 1) / (Grover ¶ [0082] 1 st ,5 th sentences: in commercial use, such as at sports venue, the system may be programmed to send sensor signals frequently during a sporting event. Activation of the monitoring system may may be programmed to occur at various time intervals. ¶ [0084] 5 th sentence: system 104 include time-to-digital converter TDC 106, which converts ToF measurement to digital output. ¶ [0008] 3 rd sentence: Upon lapse of predetermined time after receiving this signal, the delay circuit supplies a signal to the judging circuit. ¶ [0086] 1 st -5 th sentences Referring to Fig.1, AFE [analog front end] 102 detect the signal has returned to transducer 100. The AFE then generate a ToF measurement corresponding to the time elapsed between ultrasonic signal leaving transducer 100, reflecting on the liquid/air barrier or other toilet bowl contents, and returning to transducer 100. The ToF measurement generated by AFE 102 may be converted to a digital output by the TDC 106. An exemplary AFE 102 is a TDC1000 and exemplary TDC 106 is a TDC7200, both from Texas Instruments, Inc. The ToF measurement in digital form is conveyed via serial peripheral interfaces (SPI) 108 to microcontroller 110. ¶ [0087] Upon receipt of the ToF measurement, microcontroller 110 processes the ToF measurement by applying an algorithm to determine the bowl status. The microcontroller 110 compares the ToF measurement to a preselected normal status (determined for a toilet module, as described). If the results of the algorithm indicate that the bowl status is other than the preselected normal status, microcontroller 110 electrically conveys a signal to an electromechanically operated water valve 116 via digital signal 130, such as a GPIO interface. The signal causes valve 116 to move from first to second position. In an embodiment, the water valve 116 may include a solenoid driver 118 to actuate a solenoid valve 120 between the first and second position. The first and/or second position may correspond to an open, closed position, and/or partially open position of the valve. ¶ [0091] 2 nd -6 th sentences in Fig.3, the microcontroller compare a ToF measurement returned by the analog front end of the sensor system to the ToF measurement at the normal status. When the bowl water level is above the routine level (arrow B in Fig.3), if there is a line clog (e.g., liquid clog status), the ToF measurement may be large compared to the normal ToF measurement. A large ToF measurement may be any ToF measurement that is above the ToF measurement corresponding to the normal status. This info is electronically conveyed to the microcontroller which actuate a water source valve to move from open to closed position, effectively preventing any additional water from entering the toilet or toilet bowl. ¶ [0062] 4 th -5 th sentences: the electrical connection between the microcontroller and the sensor system (and any others described herein) may be by hard wiring or wireless electrical connection. The ToF measurement generated by the sensor system (i.e., by the analog front end) is electronically conveyed by the electrical connection to the microcontroller which is loaded with an algorithm that permits it to receive and process the ToF measurement. ¶ [0063] 1 st -2 nd sentences: Once ToF measurement is input, microcontroller applies the algorithm to determine the state of the bowl (bowl status). The algorithm can be written to facilitate detection of a variety of bowl statuses since the ToF measurement generated by the sensor will differ depending on the state of the bowl contents (e.g., the type of media, if any, present in the bowl contents when the ToF measurement was taken). ¶ [0064] 3 rd -4 th sentences: the algorithm includes a comparison of generated ToF measurement to a baseline set of ToF measurements that includes ToF measurements corresponding to each of the bowl statuses for which the programmer wished to assign an adjusted flush volume, including normal state. For example, a programmer assign an adjusted flush volume to a ToF measurement that corresponds to a leak, clog, lower volume, etc. ¶ [0066] 2 nd -4 th sentences: The microcontroller determine action to be taken by the toilet system corresponding to the state of the bowl. The microcontroller may send an instruction to a flush valve, a water source valve or other valve to open, close, or remain in the current state based on the bowl status. Exemplary microcontrollers include those available from Texas Instruments, Inc., 12500 TI Boulevard, Dallas, Tex. 75243 USA (Microcontroller MSP 430) or PIC microcontroller from MicroChip of Phoenix, Ariz. The microcontroller may be an ARM-based microcontroller. ¶ [0067] Ithe microcontroller uses ToF measurement within an algorithm to determine the bowl status, and electronically conveys an instruction to a water valve or valves in the system to deliver an appropriate flush volume to the bowl or to block the water source to the toilet altogether, so that no additional water enters the toilet bowl or tank. ¶ [0069], when the algorithm determines that the bowl contains solid waste in the bowl contents (bowl status is solids), the microcontroller electronically instructs a flush valve or valves to move from a closed position to an open position for a duration of time sufficient to release a first flush volume. Correspondingly, when the microcontroller determines that the bowl contains liquid (bowl status is liquid), it electronically instructs the flush valve to open for a duration of time sufficient to release a second flush volume, and when the microcontroller determines that the bowl contains paper waste or other intermediary material (bowl status is intermediary), it instructs the flush valve to open for a duration of time sufficient to release a third flush volume, and so on. Once the appropriate volume of water has been released, the valve(s) is moved to a closed position, and the system resets. Thus, it can be appreciated that the system may allow for a customized amount of water to be flushed through the system based on the specific contents of the toilet bowl. ¶ [0081] If the algorithm applied by the microcontroller indicates that the bowl state is normal, the cycle is ended. If, however, the determined bowl state is leak or high water or turbulence or similar, the microcontroller electronically instructs at least one electromechanically operated valve that is in fluid communication with the toilet bowl to move from an open position to a closed position. The valve may remain closed until the malfunction is identified and repaired and the system is reset. The system may be reset automatically based on a new ToF measurement indicating a normal status or manually by the user, as previously described. Similarly, ¶ [0092]-¶ [0095], ¶ [0104], ¶ [0105] 2 nd -3 rd sentences: The system notify of an abnormal condition requiring user intervention. In embodiments, if the water level exceeds a predetermined level, the system may disable an automatic flush and notify of a potential toilet clog or overflow condition) “A method for managing a washroom fixture ” (Claim 10) , “ the method comprising”: - “accessing operability level data from a sensor specifying a status of a washroom fixture” ; (Claim 10) (Grover ¶ [0052] detect toilet clog, leak or other malfunction. ¶ [0080]: detect and prevent or ameliorate needless waste of water by providing a way to automatically monitor a toilet for high water levels in toilet bowl or near continuous lower-level turbulence of bowl contents, indicative of leak, flush valve or other malfunction. periodic activation of monitoring cycle that includes: i) transmitting ultrasonic signal from a transmitter mounted on a toilet bowl toward the contents of the toilet bowl; ii) receiving the ultrasonic signal by receiver that determines ToF measurement of signal; iii) electrically conveying the ToF measurement to a microcontroller that applies an algorithm to determine a bowl state corresponding to the ToF measurement. For example at ¶ [0083] 4 th -8 th sentences: where the sensor generate a series of normal ToF measurements followed by a series of 0 ToF measurements (indicating no reflected signal or no signal received by the receiver). Therefore, the algorithm may, for example, determine a level of turbulence corresponding to a number of zero ToF measurements. That is, the sensor system may generate an alternating series of normal and zero ToF measurements. Where the number of zero ToF measurements generated is high, and does not approach a steady state of normal ToF measurements, there is high turbulence, and the microcontroller may determine the bowl status is leak. As the series of normal and zero ToF measurements returns to a steady state of normal ToF measurements, the system may determine liquid has been deposited in the toilet bowl. ¶ [0091] 1 st -4 th sentences: A normal ToF measurement corresponding to the Time of Flight of the sensor signal from transmitter to receiver when the toilet bowl contains water at a routine level is preselected and loaded into the algorithm. in Fig. 3, the microcontroller is programmed to compare a ToF measurement returned by the analog front end of the sensor system to the ToF measurement at the normal status. When the bowl water level is above the routine level (arrow B in Fig.3), if there is a line clog (e.g., liquid clog status), the ToF measurement may be large compared to normal ToF measurement. A large ToF measurement may be any ToF measurement that is above the ToF measurement corresponding to the normal status. This information is electronically conveyed to the microcontroller. Similar examples at ¶ [0101], ¶ [0102], ¶ [0104]) - “analyzing the operability level data to determine an actionable event type for the washroom fixture , wherein the actionable event type comprises an automated resolution event and an assisted resolution event”; (Claim 10) (Grover ¶ [0071] when microcontroller determines that the bowl is receiving continuous flow of water (bowl status is leak) or contains a level of water higher than normal (bowl status is liquid clog or solid clog), it electrically instructs a water source valve to move from an open position to a closed position for a duration of time. By water source valve it is meant a valve that controls the flow of water into the toilet as a whole, not just into the toilet bowl. Similarly, ¶ [0080] detecting and preventing or ameliorating needless waste of water by providing a way to automatically monitor a toilet for high water levels in the toilet bowl or near continuous lower-level turbulence of the bowl contents, which is indicative of a leak or flush valve or other malfunction. Such methods include periodic activation of a monitoring cycle that includes: i) transmitting an ultrasonic signal from a transmitter mounted on a toilet bowl toward the contents of the toilet bowl; ii) receiving the ultrasonic signal by a receiver that determines a ToF measurement of the signal; iii) electrically conveying the ToF measurement to a microcontroller that applies an algorithm to determine a bowl state corresponding to the ToF measurement. ¶ [0081] 1 st -3 rd sentences: If algorithm applied by microcontroller indicates that bowl state is normal, the cycle is ended. If, however, the determined bowl state is leak or high water or turbulence or similar, microcontroller electronically instructs electromechanically operated valve that is in fluid communication with the toilet bowl to move from open to closed position. The valve remain closed until the malfunction is identified and repaired and system is reset) , - “in response to determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event, cause the controller to put the washroom fixture / directing the washroom fixture to enter / into the issue resolution state for a predetermined time period or sequence and then putting the washroom fixture to one of the normal operation state or disabled state based on evaluating the operability level data after the issue resolution state” (Claims 1,10) (Grover ¶ [0069] 2 nd sentence: when microcontroller determines that the bowl status is liquid, it electronically instructs flush valve to open for duration of time sufficient to release 2 nd flush volume, and when microcontroller determines that bowl contains paper waste or other intermediary material, it instructs the flush valve to open for a duration of time sufficient to release 3 rd flush volume, and so on. Once the appropriate volume of water has been released, the valve(s) is moved to closed position, and the system reset. ¶ [0070] 1 st sentence: In each instance, 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , etc., volume may be different and calibrated to be just enough water (sufficient) to clear the identified content from the bowl. ¶ [0081] 1 st -3 rd sentences: If the algorithm applied by microcontroller indicates that the bowl state is normal, the cycle is ended. If, however, determined bowl state is leak or high water or turbulence or similar, the microcontroller electronically instructs at least one electromechanically operated valve that is in fluid communication with the toilet bowl to move from open to closed position. The valve remain closed until the malfunction is identified and repaired and the system is reset. Another example ¶ [0105] 3 rd -4 th sentences: if the water level exceeds a predetermined level, the system disable an automatic flush and notify of a potential toilet clog or overflow condition. the system may prevent or limit water damage in bathroom. The system detect when content present in the toilet remains in the toilet (due to ineffective flush) and the microcontroller send a signal to issue subsequent flush. Other examples at ¶ [0071] 1 st sentence, ¶ [0072] 1 st sentence) ; “and” - “in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, cause the controller to leave/ directing the washroom fixture in the normal operation state or put the washroom fixture into the disabled state, based on operability level data, and causing a message to be sent to a washroom attendant to service the washroom fixture ” (Claims 1,10) (Grover ¶ [0072] since the aim is for toilet overflow and/or water waste to be avoided until the particular malfunction is fixed, the duration of time may be very long, e.g. 1 to 5 hours, 10 hours, 24, 48, 72, 100 hours or indefinite amount of time; in any case, it may be preferred that the valve remains in a closed position for a sufficient time to enable the malfunction to be discovered, and repaired and the system reset. The system reset may be automatic based on sensor system detecting normal status of the bowl and sending a normal ToF measurement to microcontroller. Alternatively, user reset system manually, such as with push button. Similarly, Grover ¶ [0081] If algorithm applied by microcontroller indicates that the bowl state is normal, the cycle is ended. If, however, the determined bowl state is leak or high water or turbulence or similar, the microcontroller electronically instructs electromechanically operated valve that is in fluid communication with the toilet bowl to move from open to closed position. The valve remain closed until malfunction is identified and repaired and system is reset. The system may be reset automatically based on new ToF measurement indicating normal status or manually by user as previously described. ¶ [0105] 2 nd -3 rd sentences: The system may notify of an abnormal condition requiring user intervention. In embodiments, if the water level exceeds a predetermined level, the system may disable an automatic flush and notify of a potential toilet clog or overflow condition. In embodiments, the system may prevent or limit the water damage in a bathroom). Claims 2, 12 Grover teaches all the limitations at claims 1,10 above. Further, Grover teaches “ the washroom fixture comprises one of, a urinal, or a toilet ”. (Grover ¶ [0015] toilet). Claims 3,13 . Grover teaches all the limitations at claims 2,10 above. Further, Grover teaches “ wherein the functional sensor / sensor comprises at least one of a water flow sensor” (Grover ¶ [0102] 1 st -2 nd sentences: In Fig.9, data from a sensor used to monitor small-scale toilet bowl of Fig.8 is depicted. The graph in Fig.9 is a voltage versus time plot for duration of a test when the liquid is at routine level in the toilet bowl. Figs.4-11, ¶ [0080] detecting needless waste of water by automatically monitor toilet for high water levels in toilet bowl or near continuous lower-level turbulence of the bowl contents, indicative of a leak or flush valve or other malfunction. For example at ¶ [0071] 1 st sentence: determine that the bowl is receiving continuous flow of water (bowl status is leak) or contains a level of water higher than normal (bowl status is liquid clog or solid clog), it electrically instructs a water source valve to move from open position to a closed position for duration of time) , “ or a flush valve sensor ” (Grover Fig.4 ¶ [0068] 4 th sentence: adjustment of flush water volume in response to a specific bowl status, the valve may be, a flush valve disposed between the bowl and water source (e.g. water mains or a water tank) or a water source valve that supplies water to the toilet as a whole. Also ¶ [0074], ¶ [0087]) , Claims 4,14 Grover teaches all the limitations at claims 1,10 above. Further, Grover teaches: “ wherein from the automated resolution event and in response to putting / directing the washroom fixture in the disabled state comprises causing a message to be sent to a washroom attendant to service the washroom fixture ” (Grover ¶ [0105] 3 rd sentence: if water level exceeds predetermined level, system disable automatic flush & notify of toilet clog or overflow. ¶ [0105] 2 nd sentence: system notify of abnormal condition requiring user intervention). Claim 6 Grover teaches all the limitations at claim 1 above. Further, Grover teaches: “ wherein the issue resolution state comprises actuating the washroom fixture one or more times ” (Grover ¶ [0105] 4 th sentence: The system detect when content present in toilet remains in toilet due to ineffective flush and the microcontroller may send a signal to issue subsequent flush. ¶ [0069] 2 nd sentence when microcontroller determine that the bowl contains liquid (bowl status is liquid), it electronically instructs the flush valve to open for a duration of time sufficient to release 2 nd flush volume, and when the microcontroller determines that the bowl contains paper waste or other intermediary material (bowl status is intermediary), it instructs the flush valve to open for a duration of time sufficient to release 3 rd flush volume, and so on). Claim 7 . Grover teaches all the limitations at claim 1 above. Further, Grover teaches “ wherein the washroom fixture comprises a toilet or a urinal ” (Grover ¶ [0015] toilet), “ the functional sensor comprises a flush valve sensor and a water flow sensor, and evaluating the operability data comprises determining, in response to a flush valve actuation from the flush valve sensor, a water flow reading from the water flow sensor and comparing the water flow reading to a predetermined water flow parameter ” (Grover ¶ [0070] 2 nd -3 rd sentences: The volume suitable (or sufficient) in each circumstance will differ depending on the structure of the particular toilet to which the system is mounted. However, on average, a volume of water sufficient to remove solids may be about 2.5 to 6 liters of water, a volume of water sufficient to remove liquids alone may be about 0.5 to 5 liters, and a volume of water sufficient to remove paper may be about 1 to 5 liters. ¶ [0071] 1 st sentence: when microcontroller determines that the bowl is receiving continuous flow of water (i.e. bowl status is leak) or contains a level of water higher than normal (i.e., bowl status is liquid clog or solid clog), it electrically instructs a water source valve to move from an open position to a closed position for a duration of time. Grover ¶ [0073] the system is able to determine when the water level in the bowl is sufficiently low that the mechanical water seal of the toilet may be insufficient or altogether lost. By mechanical water seal it is meant the water located in the toilet trap that prevents sewer gases from escaping back through the bowl outlet. As is known in the art, the dimension of a toilet water seal is described in vertical distance, i.e., vertical distance between the trap dip and mean level of the water. Many modern building codes require a water seal of a minimum vertical distance (e.g 1.5, 2 inches) between the mean water level and the trap dip to ensure the integrity and sufficiency of the water seal in a working system. In this way there is a physical barrier of water extending from the weir, through the trap and to 2 inches above the trap dip. Grover ¶ [0101] A small scale toilet bowl was replicated by mounting a PVC tube to a ceramic wall tile, in Fig.8. A piezo-ceramic sensor from STEM Inc., model SMD15T21R111WL, was positioned at the bottom of the PVC tube 800 on a bottom surface of the tile 802. The cavity of the PVC tube is filled with a volume of water (about 1.8 kg) to achieve a first water level, normal 804 and a normal ToF measurement is obtained. Referencing Fig.9, when water alone is present in the cavity, the distance between start and stop is the Time of Flight measurement using the calculation: Fluid level = (TOF × Fluid Speed of Sound) / 2. Grover ¶ [0102] In Fig.9, data from a sensor used to monitor the exemplary small scale toilet bowl of Fig. 8 is depicted. The graph in Fig.9 is a voltage versus time plot for the duration of a test when the liquid is at a routine level in the toilet bowl. The data 920 represents the raw ultrasonic signal transmitted and received by the sensor. Data point 900 represents when the AFE sends the start pulse to the sensor and the ultrasonic signal is transmitted from the transducer. Data point 910 represents that the sensor has received the return signal or the receiver (in transmitter/receiver sensor like Fig.4) receives the signal. The time between the start and stop position is recorded and ToF measurement is generated. In the example, this time is approximatively 60 μs (microseconds). Thus, using the data in Fig.9, Fluid level=(60 μs×1484 m/s)/2=45 mm. That is, the fluid level in the bowl at the exemplary normal status is 45 mm. Grover mid-¶ [0104] The ToF measurement may be compared to the normal status (ToF measurement for liquid level 1106). The microcontroller then actuate a valve in the toilet 1100 to open for a specified time to perform a low-volume flush. In Fig.11C, the sensor system 1102 and microcontroller detect solids 1110, such as solid waste, in toilet bowl 1104. ToF measurement may be compared to the normal status (e.g. ToF measurement for liquid level 1106). The microcontroller may then actuate a valve in the toilet 1100 to open for a specified time (e.g., a time longer than the time opened for the status of Fig.11B) to perform a full-volume flush). Claim 8 . Grover teaches all the limitations at claim 7 above. Further, Grover teaches: “ wherein the predetermined time period or sequence for the issue resolution state comprises causing the toilet or the urinal to flush a specified number of times ”. (Grover ¶ [0105] 4 th sentence: The system detect when content present in toilet remains in toilet (e.g. due to ineffective flush) and the microcontroller send a signal to issue a subsequent flush. ¶ [0069] 2 nd -3 rd sentences: Correspondingly, when microcontroller determines that the bowl contains liquid (bowl status is liquid), it electronically instructs the flush valve to open for a duration of time sufficient to release a 2 nd flush volume, and when microcontroller determines that the bowl contains paper waste or other intermediary material (bowl status is intermediary), it instructs the flush valve to open for a duration of time sufficient to release a 3 rd flush volume, and so on. Once appropriate volume of water has been released, the valve(s) is moved to a closed position, and the system resets. ¶ [0070] 1 st sentence: In each instance, 1 st ,2 nd ,3 rd , etc., volume may be different and calibrated to be just enough water (sufficient) to clear the identified content from the bowl). Claim 9 . Grover teaches all the limitations at claim 7 above. Further, Grover teaches: “ wherein the disabled state comprises causing the toilet or the urinal to not flush” (Grover ¶ [0093] last sentence: If the status is solid clog, microcontroller may prevent the valve from opening and may prevent a flush from occurring). Claim 11 . Grover teaches all the limitations at claim 7 above. Further, Grover teaches: “ wherein in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event comprises directing a message to be sent to a washroom attendant to service the washroom fixture ” (Grover ¶ [0105] 3 rd sentence: if water level exceeds predetermined level, system disable automatic flush and notify of toilet clog or overflow. ¶ [0105] 2 nd sentence: system notify of abnormal condition requiring user intervention). Claim 15 . Grover teaches all the limitations at claim 10 above. Further, Grover teaches: “ wherein analyzing the operability data comprises determining the washroom fixture is partially clogged and determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event type” (Grover ¶ [0094] In a circumstance where bowl water contains urine (liquid status) alone, the result of algorithm indicate several different states, corresponding to arrows D, E, F in Fig.3. For example, the ToF measurement may indicate either a ToF measurement approximately equal to ToF measurement at a normal status (arrow D) or a ToF measurement approximately equal to the ToF of normal state alternating with a ToF of 0 for the duration of toilet use (arrow E). This information, once electronically conveyed to the microcontroller, causes the microcontroller to actuate a flush valve to move from a closed position to an open position for a duration of time that permits release of a sufficient volume of water to the bowl to clear the urine from the bowl and out toilet outlet (a low flush). In general, this is a volume of water that is about 3 quarters less than the volume needed to clear solid waste. As a rule of thumb, the volume is about 0.5 to 5 liters. This volume of water may be predetermined by microcontroller. ¶ [0095] noting another example where when bowl contains liquid waste and toilet paper or tissue (arrow F in Fig.3), the result of algorithm will indicate either a ToF at or close to the ToF of normal state alternating with ToF of 0 for duration of toilet use and for a duration after toilet use is completed. This info, once electronically conveyed to the microcontroller, causes it to instruct a flush valve to move from a closed position to an open position for a duration of time that permits release of a sufficient volume of water to the bowl to clear the urine and paper/tissue from the bowl and out the toilet outlet (intermediate flush). In general, this is a volume of water that is less than the volume needed to clear solid waste. It can range from about 1 to about 5 liters depending on the structure of toilet. This volume of water may be predetermined by microcontroller). Claim 16 . Grover teaches all the limitations at claim 10 above. Further, Grover teaches “ wherein analyzing the operability data comprises determining the washroom fixture is fully clogged and determining the actionable event type is the assisted resolution event type” (Grover Fig.3 & ¶ [0093] When there is solid waste (solids or full solid clog status) in the liquid in toilet bowl (arrow C in Fig. 3), ToF measurement is 0 or near 0. The ultrasonic signal is attenuated, or absorbed, by the solids in the toilet bowl. Therefore, the signal does not reflect back to the sensor or is reflected back at a minimal level. Once this info is conveyed to microcontroller, it determines whether the ToF measurement represents solids or solid clog based on historical toilet data. Such historical data may be, whether the toilet has completed a prior flush. If the status is solids, the microcontroller may actuate the flush valve to move from a closed position to an open position for a duration of time that permits a sufficient volume of water to the bowl to clear the solids from the bowl and out the toilet outlet (a full flush). In general this is about 3 to 5 liters of water, although amounts will vary depending on the structure of the specific toilet. This volume of water may be predetermined by the microcontroller. If the status is solid clog, the microcontroller may prevent the valve from opening and may prevent a flush from occurring ¶ [0072] 2 nd -3 rd sentences: The system reset may be automatic based on the sensor system detecting a normal status of the bowl and sending a normal ToF measurement to the microcontroller. Alternatively, a user may reset the system manually, such as with a push button. ¶ [0081] 2 nd -3 rd sentences: The valve may remain closed until the malfunction is identified and repaired and the system is reset. The system may be reset automatically based on a new ToF measurement indicating a normal status or manually by the user, as previously described) . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or 102 (a)(2) or both , as being anticipated by Hall et al US 20170254060 A1 hereinafter Hall . As per , Claim 17 . A method for managing a washroom fixture, the method comprising: - “accessing first operability data from a first sensor specifying consumable product use from a washroom component” (Hall Fig.2 step 204, ¶ [0008] 4 th sentence: The toilet paper dispensed is measured by sensors associated with a toilet paper dispenser. ¶ [0027] 4 th sentence: as user takes toilet paper 204, the sensors sense a number of revolutions of the toilet paper roll, amount of toilet paper removed, and/or optical movement of the toilet paper dispensed to detect the amount of toilet paper dispensed) “and second operability data from a second sensor specifying an operational state of a washroom fixture ”; ” (Hall Fig.2 step 206 and ¶ [0027] 5 th sentence bowl sensors detect water displacement 206 and send this data to toilet flush timer 208); - “analyzing the first and second operability data to determine an actionable event type for the washroom” (Hall ¶ [0008] 2 nd sentence: the amount of toilet paper used and the additional information from displacement sensors placed along the toilet bowl allow a toilet flush controller to adjust a flush volume or length to efficiently and effectively flush a toilet. ¶ [0026] 15 th sentence: The change in liquid displacement may be correlated to a toilet use event and /or to a toilet paper use amount to control a toilet flush mechanism) , “wherein the actionable event type comprises an automated resolution event” (Hall ¶ [0027] last sentence: the data may be processed by the controller and the timer regulates the length of flush or the volume of the water flushed based on the toilet paper usage and the water displaced 214. ¶ [0028] 9 th sentence: When the toilet flushes, a timer regulate length of the flush based on the toilet paper usage and /or water displaced 316) “and an assisted resolution event” (Hall ¶ [0008] 8 th -9 th sentences: when toilet paper roll reaches a level of depletion or a threshold level, sensors send a wireless notification alerts a janitor or staff the toilet paper is depleted and needs to be replaced) “and the analyzing comprises determining high consumable product use from the washroom component” (Hall [0008] 8 th -10 th sentences when toilet paper roll reaches a level of depletion or predetermined threshold level sensors send a wireless notification alerting a janitor or staff member that the toilet paper is depleted and needs to be replaced. There may also be notification signal located on exterior housing of the apparatus to alert the user of low toilet paper availability) “and determining a low operational state for the washroom fixture ”; (Hall ¶ [0029] 8 th -9 th sentences the bowl sensors detect a clog when the water levels rises past a specified point when a large volume of toilet paper enters the toilet bowl). - “in response to determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event, directing a washroom component in the washroom to enter one of the normal operation state or disabled state based on an evaluation of the first and the second operability level data after an issue resolution state”; (interpreted under MPEP 2111.04 II Contingent limitations ¶1: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Here, the contingent limitation of “ in response to determining the actionable event type is the automated resolution event, directing a washroom component in the washroom to enter one of the normal operation state or disabled state based on an evaluation of the first and the second operability level data after an issue resolution state” at Claim 17 is not required to be performed when “ in response to determining the actionable event type is” not “the automated resolution event” ) “and” - “in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom component to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on an evaluation of the first or the second operability level data” . (interpreted under MPEP 2111.04 II Contingent limitations ¶1: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Here, the contingent limitation “in response to determining the action event type is the assisted resolution event, and directing the washroom component to enter the normal operation state or the disabled state, based on an evaluation of the first or the second operability level data” is not required to be performed when “in response to determining the action event type is” not “ the assisted resolution event ”). Claim 18 . Hall teaches all the limitations in claim 17 above. Furthermore, Hall teaches “ the washroom component is a bath tissue or paper towel dispenser” (Hall Fig.1 element 104) “and the washroom fixture is a toilet or urinal ” (Hall Fig.1, 108). Conclusion Following prior art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: - US 20180064295 A1 teaching at Fig.1A and associated text a washroom component comprising a toilet and a toilet paper dispenser PNG media_image1.png 679 696 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig.1A of US 20180064295 A1 depicting the combination of toilet and toilet paper - WO 2018004533 A1 reciting at p.4 lines 26-30: The method may further include switching the towel dispenser operating in hanging towel mode back to hidden towel mode upon reaching the setpoint low fill level in the towel dispenser operating in hanging towel mode. Alternatively, the method may include switching the towel dispenser operating in hidden towel mode to hanging towel mode upon reaching the setpoint low fill level in the towel dispenser operating in hanging towel mode. - WO 2010108295 A2 teaching a Device For Optimizing Toilet Operation, Has Storage Container For Toilet Paper, Sensor For Measuring Consumption Of Toilet Paper, Data Processor Wirelessly Connected With Sensor, And Actuator Connected With Data Processor - Shuaeb MA. Clogging Potential of Low-Flush Toilet Drain System, Doctoral dissertation, 2017 teaching a study divided into two parts. In the first parts the clogging potential was defined for two toilet models and the effect of the related hydraulic parameters was evaluated. After, the minimum flushing condition to carry the waste samples without clogging was calculated and the clogging charts were created. In the second part, the hydraulic characteristics were defined for two toilet models. Next, the clogging potential was calculated for selected toilet paper product as representative of flushable sanitary products. Moreover, the relation between the toilet hydraulic characteristics and the clogging potential for the toilet paper products were investigated. Finally, in both study parts it was shown how the results can be used in real practice and how it can help in reducing water consumption while maintaining proper waste drainage. - US 20050171709 A1 hereinafter Nortier teaching “ prior to causing the controller to put the washroom component in the issue resolution state or the disabled state” (Nortier Fig.6 step 156 prior to causing the controller to close the servo valve), “and based on the evaluation of the operability level data” (Fig.6 step 152 based on evaluation of: Is Restroom Facility in out-of-use period?) “determining the actionable event type” (Nortier Fig.6 determining at step 154: Water Usage, Yes or No. Also Fig. 6 determining step 160 the Water Flow) “ is one of (i) the automated resolution event for which no attendant intervention is specified to address a maintenance need for the washroom component” “ or (ii) the assisted resolution event for which attendant intervention is specified to address the maintenance need for the washroom component ” (¶ [0045], ¶ [0046] 3 rd sentence: Fig.6 step 152 Is Rest Facility in Out-of-use Period?->No-> Monitor Water flow out of expected range?->Y->step 164 Generate/Send Alarm Notification w/time/date stamp: to initiate a maintenance request to investigate a potential clog, leak or other problem); - US 5438711 A reciting at column 20 lines 6-20: When the paper is removed (discharged by the flushing water) while the voltage is applied to the paper position detection sensor 70 (within one minute), new paper can be fed. At this time, the movable plate 50 returns to its original position to prepare for feeding the new paper. But, when the feed switch is not on, the paper position detection sensor 70 puts out its light and the movable plate 50 returns to its original position. At this time, if the paper is already removed, a predetermined length of paper is fed in preparation for feeding the paper next time, and the apparatus goes into standby. However, if the paper remains unremoved, it is interpreted as paper clogging and the apparatus goes into standby without doing anything. Moreover per column 12 lines 10-17: even if the seat covering paper feeding switch 71 is pressed down erroneously or mischievously or there is twisting or clogging within the functional unit casing 15, the control unit F stops the operation of the seat covering paper feeding mechanism C when the toilet seat body 11 is erected thus preventing the seat covering paper P from being fed from the functional unit casing 15. column 23 lines 13-17: motors M1 and M2 remain stopped. Accordingly, trouble from incomplete operations of these mechanisms can be prevented . - US 20180135285 A1 reciting at ¶ [0114]: FIG. 3 shows an example normal evacuation situation and FIG. 3A shows an example clogged toilet situation. When debris (e.g., a child's toy, excess quantities of toilet paper, a massive poop volcano, etc.) blocks the toilet exhaust port 63 or further down waste pipe 57 as shown in FIG. 3A, flushing the toilet does not cause the bowl 54 to evacuate. Instead, the water level within bowl 54 continues to rise as water from the tank 52 rushes downward into the bowl. In many instances, the water will stop rising before the toilet overflows. This is because most toilet bowls 54 are designed to hold the entire contents of the tank 52 without overflowing—but only if the water in the tank falls low enough to allow the flapper 62 to seat so as to prevent further water from flowing into the bowl 54. Overflows can occur with just a single flush when blocked siphon 55b port (see FIG. 2A) prevents the rapid evacuation of the water in the tank 52 while the fill valve 66 is open . - US 11013377 B2 teaching the management of a toilet state by taking into account the toilet bowl wash switch as per Figs. 5, 6, 10 & associated text as well as the use of toilet paper as per Figs.7-10 & associated text - US 4456193 A column 2 lines 39-51: Another proposal, apparent from U.S. Pat. No. 4,111,378, by M. L. Barwick, issued Sept. 5, 1978, folds the web material back upon itself towards the end of the ribbon supply, whereby a rotary web sensing system will reverse direction of rotation, indicating the impending tape end. The practicality of such a proposal is naturally limited by the ability to provide or obtain the requisite partially reversely wound web supplies. Similarly, a proposal according to U.S. Pat. No. 4,111,565, by B. E. Jagger, issued Sept. 5, 1978, requires provision of a special paper path with particular protrusions for sensing paper depletion in a printer . However according to the same US 4456193 A at column 1 lines 13-20: “ By way of example, the subject invention is herein disclosed with emphasis on systems for supplying and advancing printing ink ribbons. It should, however, be understood that the subject invention applies broadly to magnetic recording and other tape supply and transport methods and apparatus, to paper, foil or film supply and advancing systems, and to various other kinds of web supply and advancing methods and apparatus” . This corroborates the reasonably pertinent test at claim 19 per MPEP 21451.01(a) I ¶1-¶5 in view of In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). - US 11141027 B2 reciting at column 16 line 65 to column 17 line 2: The user interface 812 may indicate information such as an amount of paper remaining in the dispenser 100 (e.g., that one or both of the paper towel rolls are depleted or nearly depleted), - US 20180075375 A1 Fig2 element 35 John the towel dispenser is half full. Do not fill until next visit Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. 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 . /OCTAVIAN ROTARU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A May 19 th , 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 2 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 3 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 4 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 5 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 6 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 7 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 8 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 9 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 10 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 11 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 12 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 13 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 14 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 15 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 16 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 17 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 18 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 19 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 20 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 21 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 22 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 23 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 24 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 25 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 26 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 27 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 28 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 29 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 30 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/812,466 Page 31 Art Unit: 3624 1 Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F3d 1344,1350,111 USPQ2d 1717,1721 (Fed Cir 2014)
Prosecution Insights