DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 12/02/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claims 1 and 12 are not clear for the following reasons:
The claim defines the electronic device via its relation to a specific faucet having a plurality of inlets which leaves the reader in doubt if the faucet of the plurality of inlets respectively is part of the claimed subject-matter or not.
The claim allows for a plethora of alternatives through the use of and/or connections, which makes the claim obscure and its subject-matter unduely difficult to construe.
The expression a first command is misleading; a command is an order and not a structural element as apparently envisaged.
The features linked with the self-learning operating configuration are incomprehensible through the use of convoluted language and the combination of features without correlation, i.e. what has the connection of ... a first source of conditioned water or fluid of a plurality of sources of conditioned water or fluid to at least an inlet of said plurality of inlets automatically determines an enabling of at least a first actuating combination of said at least a first command allowing a first configuration of supplying of said outlet by means of water deriving from at least a first selected inlet of said plurality of inlets or from a first selected set of inlets of said plurality of inlets? What is an associative datum?
For these reasons, the features in question were understood to read as: “a self-learning operating configuration in which the data processing unit upon detecting a connection of a first source of fluid to a first one of the inlets enables a first actuating combination of the first command, which combination allows the supply of said outlet with fluid from the first inlet, and in which configuration the data processing unit stores in said memory a univocal association of said first inlet to said first source of conditioned fluid”.
A similar objection applies to the features linked with the dispensing operating configuration, which also are incomprehensible through the use of convoluted language, , i.e. what has the connection of …an operating configuration of dispensing, wherein an actuation of said first command in said first actuating combination determines, through said data processing unit and in an automatic way, a loading of the first associative datum from said memory, and a dispensing on said outlet [[(16)]] of water deriving from said first selected inlet of said plurality of inlets or from said first selected set of inlets of said plurality of inlets according to said first associative datum”.
For the search the features in question were understood to read as: “a dispensing operating configuration, wherein an actuation of said first command with said first actuating combination causes the data processing unit to load from said memory the univocal association and to dispense fluid on said outlet, which fluid derives from said first inlet”.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected because they are depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Claims 13-21 are also rejected because they are depending upon the rejected claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TATERA et al. (US 2022/0371877).
With regards to claim 1:
TATERA et al. discloses an electronic device for controlling a faucet (tap, paragraph [0033]; the control of TATERA et al. is suitable to be used with a faucet), the electronic device comprising:
- at least a first command for selecting a supply of an outlet of the faucet with water deriving from at least an inlet of a plurality of inlets of said faucet
(paragraph [0033], actuation component), said plurality of inlets being directly realized on said faucet or being realized in at least a connection module configured for being connected to the faucet (e.g. figure 1);
- a data processing unit operatively associated to said at least a first command (e. g. processor, paragraph [0027]);
- a memory operatively accessible from said data processing unit (implicit, a processor needs a memory);
said electronic device being configured for being activated in at least a self-learning operating configuration (as interpreted in the 112 rejection above) in which the data processing unit upon detecting a connection of a first source of fluid to a first one of the inlets enables a first actuating combination of the first command, which combination allows the supply of said outlet with fluid from the first inlet, and in which configuration the data processing unit stores in said memory a univocal association of said first inlet to said first source of conditioned fluid (see paragraph [0039]);
said electronic device being configured for being activated in at least a dispensing operating configuration (as interpreted in the 112 rejection above) wherein an actuation of said first command (108 via switch (109)) a logical association between said at least a first source of conditioned water or fluid and an inlet of said plurality of inlets (111, 121, 131) to which the first source of conditioned water or fluid is connected, so that said first command, when activated, recalls the logical association and causes a supply of the outlet of said faucet (104) with a fluid supplied from said first source of conditioned water or fluid on said inlet to which the first source of conditioned water or fluid is connected, by making said inlet a first, specific, inlet logically associated to said first source of conditioned water or fluid (see [0033]) with said first actuating combination causes the data processing unit to load from said memory the univocal association and to dispense fluid on said outlet, which fluid derives from said first inlet (that is from the first inlet; that's how the device of TATERA et al. is supposed to work).
PNG
media_image1.png
1764
1512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Minh Le, whose telephone number is 571-270-3805. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MINH Q LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753