DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25-30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40 and 43 are pending. Claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 31, 33, 36, 39, 41, 42 and 44 are cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species 1 and 3 (claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 23) in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4, 5, 13, 25-30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40 and 43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 23 are objected to because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the water control device” in lines 3-5 and 7 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one water control device” for uniformity with “at least one water control device” in line 3, and both occurrences of “the sensor” in line 9 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one sensor” for uniformity with “at least one sensor” in line 6.
.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the water control device” in lines 3-4 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one water control device”; and the phrase “the sensor” in line 5 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one sensor”.
Regarding claim 5, the status identifier should be changed from “Original” to “Withdrawn”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the person” in lines 6 and 7 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one person” for uniformity with “at least one person” in line 2.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the sensor” in line 3 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one sensor”.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the sensor” in line 1 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one sensor”; and the phrase “sensor, a paper” in line 4 should apparently be replaced with “a sensor, and a paper”.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “the water control device” in lines 2 and 4 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one water control device”; the phrase “the sensor” in lines 1 and 3 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one sensor”; and the phrase “the person” in line 3 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one person” for uniformity with claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “device device” in line 6 should apparently be replaced with “device”.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “on credential” in line 3 should apparently be replaced with “on the credential”.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase “the water control device” in lines 6, 11 and 12 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one water control device”; the phrase “the sensor” in lines 4-5 should apparently be replaced with “the at least one sensor”; and the phrase “service; causing” in line 11 should apparently be replaced with “service; and causing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: water control device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on a review of the specification, a water control device is interpreted to include tap ware, urinals, cisterns, showers, toilets, baths, bidets, water heater systems, water cooling towers, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8,11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2871295 to Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. (“Panasonic”).
Regarding claim 1, Panasonic teaches a water cleansing system (para [0006] – [0007], [0012] – [0018], [0021] – [0022], [0025] – [0027], [0031] – [0033], [0035] – [0036], [0056], [0060], [0070] – [0080], [0123]) useful for a water usage environment, the system comprising: at least one water control device (Fig. 1, ref. 1000, para [0012]) in the water usage environment, wherein the water control device is operable to operate in a water cleansing mode for cleansing the water control device and/or at least a portion of pipework connected to the water control device, at least one sensor (Fig. 1, ref. 600 and 610, para [0012], [0013]) useful for sensing whether it is safe to commence and/or continue the cleansing of the water control device and/or the pipework, and a control system (Figs. 1 and 3, ref. 4 and 300, para [0013] - [0018]) arranged to control the water cleansing mode based on the sensing of the sensor, wherein the sensor is for sensing at least one person approaching, entering, being within or exiting the water usage environment.
Regarding claim 2, Panasonic discloses a system wherein the water cleansing system is a thermal cleansing system, the water cleansing mode is a thermal cleansing mode for thermally cleansing the water control device and/or the pipework connected to the water control device, and the control system is arranged to control the thermal cleansing mode based on the sensing of the sensor (para [0031] – [0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Panasonic discloses a system wherein the at least one sensor senses whether at least one person is entering, within, in proximity to or exiting the water usage environment, to generate an occupancy signal for use by the control system, wherein the control system is arranged to control the water cleansing mode based on the occupancy signal, wherein the occupancy signal indicates current occupancy of the water usage environment by the person, potential future occupancy of the water usage environment by the person or non-occupancy of the water usage environment (para [0013] – [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Panasonic discloses a system wherein the control system determines whether it is safe to activate the water cleansing mode based on the sensing by the sensor and, upon a positive determination, enables the water cleansing mode to be activated upon receiving an activation signal, or the control system enables the water cleansing mode to be activated by generating and outputting an indication indicating that it is safe to activate the water cleansing mode (para [0006], [0013], [0022], [0032], [0070] – [080]).
Regarding claim 11, Panasonic discloses a system wherein, when the water cleansing mode is to be activated by generating and outputting the indication, the indication is an operable button that is displayed that, upon operating, generates an activation signal to cause the control system to activate the water cleansing mode, or the indication is at least one of a visual, audible, haptic indication, display of a message, symbol, colour, sound, and vibration (para [0016], [0021] – [0022]).
Regarding claim 15, Panasonic discloses a system wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a door movement sensor, a person movement sensor, a water control device sensor, a gateway sensor, a tap sensor, a toilet flush sensor, a shower sensor, a soap dispensing sensor, a bin usage sensor, a paper towel dispenser sensor (para [0012], [0013], [0017], [0018], [0071]).
Regarding claim 17, Panasonic discloses a system wherein the sensor is arranged to operate in a low-sense mode to detect the person to activate the water control device; and/or arranged to operate in a high-sense mode to detect the person is nearby to the sensor without activating the water control device (para [0070] – [0080]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2871295 to Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. (“Panasonic”).
Regarding claim 23, Panasonic discloses separation between the water cleansing mode and the presence of a person, and a transition between (para [0074] – [0075], [0080]), as well as the importance of proper temperature and flow for human body use (para [0002]), but does not explicitly teach the system whereupon activation of the water cleansing mode by the control system, the control system is further arranged to deactivate the water cleansing mode upon a determination that at least one person is within, approaching and/or entering the water usage environment based on the sensing of the sensor, wherein deactivating the water cleansing mode comprises one or more of the control system: stopping hot water from flowing through the water control device and/or the pipework; stopping hot water from flowing in the water usage environment; diverting hot water flowing out of a water control device to an auxiliary water outlet; stopping a water control device from functioning; generating an audible or visible indication that a water control device is not to be used; generating an indication that a water control device is out of service; causing cold water to flow through the water control device to cool the water control device down. However, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the Panasonic system whereupon activation of the water cleansing mode by the control system, the control system is further arranged to deactivate the water cleansing mode upon a determination that at least one person is within, approaching and/or entering the water usage environment based on the sensing of the sensor, wherein deactivating the water cleansing mode comprises one or more of the control system: stopping hot water from flowing through the water control device and/or the pipework; stopping hot water from flowing in the water usage environment; diverting hot water flowing out of a water control device to an auxiliary water outlet; stopping a water control device from functioning; generating an audible or visible indication that a water control device is not to be used; generating an indication that a water control device is out of service; causing cold water to flow through the water control device to cool the water control device down, with a reasonable expectation of success, in view of the disclosure of separation between the water cleansing mode and the presence of a person, and a transition between, as well as the importance of proper temperature and flow for human body use, and in order to enhance process control and safety.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2871295 to Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. (“Panasonic”) in view of CN 207538149U to Xiamen Hezhen Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd. (“Xiamen”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 3, Panasonic does not explicitly teach the system wherein the thermal cleansing mode enables a thermal mixer valve to operate at a defined water temperature for a defined period of time to enable hot water to flow through the water control device and/or the pipework via the thermal mixer valve. However, thermal mixer valves were known in the art as effective for enhancing process control (see, e.g., Xiamen at, inter alia, transcript, abstract, page 3, para beginning “Please refer to Fig.1 and Fig. 2”), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Panasonic system wherein the thermal cleansing mode enables a thermal mixer valve to operate at a defined water temperature for a defined period of time to enable hot water to flow through the water control device and/or the pipework via the thermal mixer valve, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance process control.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2871295 to Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. (“Panasonic”) in view of US 10,986,978 to Morgan (“Morgan”).
Regarding claim 18, Panasonic does not explicitly teach the system wherein the water cleansing system comprises a plurality of the water control device, each water control device having an associated sensor, wherein each water control device is connected via a wireless network, wherein the control system is arranged to control the water cleansing mode of any one water control device based on the sensing of the sensor associated with any one other water control device or any one other device in the water usage environment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Panasonic system herein the water cleansing system comprises a plurality of the water control device, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance comfort and save time during high demand periods. Note that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Further, wireless networks were known is the art as effective for enhancing process control (see, e.g., Morgan at, inter alia, col. 1, lines 14-23, col. 4, lines 7-15), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to further modify the Panasonic system as was known wherein each water control device has an associated sensor, wherein each water control device is connected via a wireless network, wherein the control system is arranged to control the water cleansing mode of any one water control device based on the sensing of the sensor associated with any one other water control device or any one other device in the water usage environment, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance process control.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2871295 to Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. (“Panasonic”) in view of JP H06123126 to Omron Corp. (“Omron”, and note the attached translation).
Regarding claim 20, Panasonic does not explicitly teach the system is arranged to detect a credential associated with at least one authorised person, wherein the control system is arranged to control the water cleansing mode based on credential, and wherein the control system optionally modifies the water cleansing mode upon a determination that the authorised person has a credential that permits the water cleansing mode to be modified, and the water cleansing mode is modified by allowing the water cleansing mode to continue in the event the authorised person approaches and/or enters the water usage environment. However, prepaid cards, or credentials, were known in the art as effective for generating revenue while securing access to prepaid card users, or authorized persons, enhancing availability, cleanliness and safety for the authorized persons (see, e.g., Omron at, inter alia, translation, abstract, page 1, para [0002], page 3, para [0002]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Panasonic system as was known wherein it is arranged to detect a credential associated with at least one authorised person, wherein the control system is arranged to control the water cleansing mode based on credential, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to generate revenue while enhancing availability, cleanliness and safety for the authorized persons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714