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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 7/13/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 52-54 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 35 - 51 remain for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 3/5/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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: seat mechanism in claim 35; height adjustment mechanism in claim 42; and bidet adjustment mechanism in claim 44.
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 45 is indefinite because of the claim limitations in parentheses in lines 3 and 5. It is not clear if the parenthetical limitations form a part of the claim or not and accordingly the scope is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 35- 38, 41, 43, 45, 46, and 50 - 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 20201201462) in view of Watt et al. (US 2007/0056084 hereinafter Watt) and Dobrinksy et al. (US 10,369,239 hereinafter Dobrinsky).
Regarding claim 35, Sato discloses an automated toilet system comprising: at least one toilet (10), including: a toilet bowl (12) fluidly coupled via cleaning device (79) a to a source of water (tank or supply pipe, see attached machine translation, p. 6, third full paragraph); a seat (24) pivotally (see hinges in fig. 1) coupled to one of the toilet bowl (fig. 1), a wall, and a structural member; a seat mechanism (71) coupled to the seat and configured to raise and to lower the seat (p. 5, first full paragraph); at least one seat position sensor configured to detect a position of the seat in a lowered position (53, p. 4, sixth full paragraph); a user detection sensor (51, 52) configured to detect at least one attribute of a user of the automated toilet system (p. 6, third full paragraph); a deodorization system (76); a toilet control system that includes: a processor (40, 28, 110) configured to implement a plurality of computer executable instructions, the processor being communicatively coupled to at least one of the cleaning device, the seat mechanism, the at least one seat position sensor, the user detection sensor, and the deodorization system (p. 4, second full paragraph, 40 executes various programs and data for controlling operation of each of the toilet devices); a computer memory communicatively coupled with the processor and storing the plurality of computer executable instructions that (42, 112), when implemented by the processor, cause the processor to perform functions including: at least one of actuating the cleaning device (p. 6, third full paragraph); actuating the seat mechanism to one of raise the seat and lower the seat (p. 4, last line - p. 5, first full paragraph); and actuating the deodorizing system to deodorize at least one of the toilet bowl and the seat (9. 5, last partial paragraph - p. 6, first two lines).
Sato does not show that the seat position sensor detects a position of the seat while it is raised. Attention is turned to Watt which teaches a similar automated toilet (100) which has a toilet seat position sensor which determines whether the seat is in the down position (para. [0021]) and the upright or raised position (para. [0023]). It would have been obvious to have provided a sensor that can detect that the toilet seat is raised or lowered, in the event that a person manually lifts the toilet seat, or if a standing user is using the toilet
Sato does not show a flush valve explicitly, although it is highly likely that the cleaning device (79) which is connected to a flush pipe or tank comprises a flush valve at least in part. Attention is turned to Watts which teaches an automated flushing apparatus (131) including a valve (fig. 4) which automatically flushes the toilet based on a signal from a sensor (para. [0169]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a flush valve in the toilet of Sato in order to effectively clean the toilet bowl after use.
Sato does not show a sanitizing system, instead showing a deodorizing one. Attention is turned to Dobrinksy which teaches an automated bathroom system having a UV sanitization system (110; 20A, 20B) which is operable by a controller (111) to sanitize the toilet bowl, seat, and other areas in the bathroom (col. 7, ln. 11-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a UV sanitizing system in the device of Sato in order to kill microbes in, on, and around the toilet to ensure a sanitary environment for user comfort and protection.
Regarding claim 36, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the processor is communicatively couped to at least one of the flush valve, seat mechanism, user detection sensor, seat position sensor, and sanitization system via a wired or wireless connection (p. 3, second full paragraph; p. 4, last two full paragraphs).
Regarding claim 37, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the at least one toilet comprises a plurality of toilets (p. 8, third full paragraph, note: plurality of devices 20).
Regarding claim 38, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further shows that the processor and memory (110, 112) is remote from the toilet bowl (see fig. 1, 110 is associated with mobile terminal).
Regarding claim 41, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention and further shows an application (200, 116 on 118) on a user’s mobile device (100) communicatively coupled to the processor (110)(see fig. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 43, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention and further shows a bidet nozzle (30) fluidly coupled with the water source.
Regarding claim 45, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention and further provides at least one sensor communicatively coupled to the process, the sensor being configured to detect a user’s motion (124)(p. 7, final paragraph).
Regarding claims 46 and 51, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, with Dobrinsky further teaching that the sanitization system comprises UV lights (20A, 20B) configured to sanitize the toilet, bowl, and seat (see fig. 1a, 1b) and also configured to sanitize the bathroom (col. 7, ln. 25 - 30).
Regarding claim 50, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows a seat heater (72) communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein computer executable instructions when implemented by the processor cause the processor to acuate the heater to raise the temperature of the seat relative to an ambient temperature (p. 5, second full paragraph).
Claim(s) 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Watts, and Dobrinsky as applied to claim 35, in view of Uchida (US 2013/0285837).
Regarding claim 39, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show at least one database communicatively coupled to the processor and configured to store at least one datum. Attention is turned to Uchida which teaches a home appliance monitoring system (fig. 2), monitoring among other things, a toilet (para. [0036]). The system includes a processor (40) which is communicatively coupled to a database (74) which is configured to store at least one datum representative of sensor data from the toilet, the sensor data including flushing (para. [0020] or non-use for a particular time period (para. [0036]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a database/management system in the device of Sato in order to remotely monitor the toilet device and gather data about longitudinal use trends. Under the proposed modification, the processor and database can record and store sensor data from the seat, the user sensor, or sanitizing system. It is well within the purview of the ordinary artisan to record sensor data from sensor operated devices, as taught to be desirable by Uchida.
Claim(s) 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Watts, and Dobrinsky, as applied to claim 35, in view of Ozenick (US 7,797,769).
Regarding claim 40, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention and further teaches a microphone, but does not show a voice detection system communicatively coupled to the process that can receive verbal instructions from the user. Attention is turned to Ozenick which teaches an automated toilet system having a voice detection system coupled to a processor and that is configured to receive verbal instructions from the user (col. 4, ln. 29-47). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a voice detection system in the device of Sato in order to provide a different means of user control of the system.
Claim(s) 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Watts, and Dobrinsky, as applied to claim 35, in view of Lee (KR 20110010319).
Regarding claim 42, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a toilet height adjustment mechanism. Attention is turned to Lee which teaches a toilet having a height adjustment mechanism (171, 172) that adjusts a height of the toilet relative to the floor. See figure 12. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a toilet height adjustment mechanism in order to allow various users to adjust the height of the toilet to their preference.
Claim(s) 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Watts, and Dobrinksy, as applied to claim 45, in view of Hall et al. (US 2018/0002911 hereinafter Hall).
Regarding claim 44, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a bidet position sensor as claimed. Attention is turned to Hall which teaches an automated toilet system (200) having a bidet (202, 215) with a coupled to a bidet adjustment mechanism (206) and at least one bidet positioned sensor (205) configured to detect a position of the bidet relative to the user; wherein the adjustment mechanism and sensor are communicatively coupled to a controller/processor (413) which implements computer implemented instructions to cause the processor to perform functions including adjusting the position of the bidet relative to the user (para. [0024], [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided an adjustment and position sensing system in the device of Sato in order to adjust a bidet based on user preferences or sensed areas of feces.
Claim(s) 47 - 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Watts, and Dobrinsky, as applied to claim 35, in view of Grover et al. (US 20180010322 hereinafter Grover).
Regarding claims 47 - 48, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that the processor adjusted at least one of a volume or flow velocity entering the toilet bowl as a function of whether a user has deposited a solid in the bowl. Attention is turned to Grover which teaches a toilet having a processor (210) which is programmed with computer executable instructions that adjust the volume of fluid delivered by the flush valve as a function of whether or not a user has deposited a solid in the bowl (see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided functionality to the processor of Sato that enables a solids or liquids flush in order to conserve water.
Claim(s) 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Watts, and Dobrinsky, as applied to claim 35, in view of Eisenberg et al. (US 2004/0040086 hereinafter Eisenberg).
Regarding claim 49, Sato as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but is silent as to the particulars of the door. Attention is turned to Eisenberg which teaches a bathroom (50) a door configured to allow the user to access a space where the toilet is located, and wherein a lock on the door is communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the computer executable instructions that, when implemented by the processor, cause the processor to at least one of lock and unlock the lock on the door as a function of a position of the user relative to the door (para. [0049]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a door with a lock that is coupled to the automated toilet system so that upon a user’s exit, the door locks and resets and/or sanitizes the system for the next use and/or user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Himmelmann (US 9,892,372) shows a data collection system for a bathroom, of interest to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights