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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,610,467. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 13, 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,610,467 which encompasses the same metes, bounds, and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,285. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 12, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,285 which encompasses the same metes, bounds, and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (US 8,269,193) in view of Jin et al. (US 2023/0109612).
Regarding claim 1, Christensen discloses a method (abstract) comprising: detecting, via a sensor operatively connected to a reservoir containing a cleaning chemical (sensor attached to a reservoir in col. 5, lines 25-30), addition of a cleaning implement to the reservoir cleaning products in col. 6, lines 23-33); in the reservoir based on detected addition of the cleaning implement to the reservoir (col. 5, lines 20-37; col. 6, lines 16-39).
Christensen discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose tracking, via a controller, a time to expiration of the cleaning chemical; and issuing a user alert, via a user interface, when a tracked time of the cleaning chemical reaches an expiration time.
However, Jin discloses tracking, via a controller (computing device 495 in page 21, [0166]), a time to expiration of the cleaning chemical (page 21, [0168]) ; and issuing a user alert, via a user interface, when a tracked time of the cleaning chemical reaches an expiration time (page 21, [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of Jin within the system of Christensen in order to track, monitor and clean activities of the room thereby increasing the reliability of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Christensen discloses wherein detecting addition of the cleaning implement to the reservoir comprises discriminating a detected change to the cleaning chemical not associated with addition of the cleaning implement to the reservoir (col. 5, lines 20-67; col. 6, lines 1-39).
Regarding claim 3, Christensen discloses wherein the cleaning implement is a rag or a sponge (cleaning products in col. 6, lines 23-37).
Regarding claim 4, Christensen and Jin disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Jin further discloses wherein tracking the time to expiration comprises at least one of: starting a timer upon addition of the cleaning implement to the reservoir; and reducing an amount of time to expiration for the cleaning chemical (page 21, [0168-0169]).
Regarding claim 5, Christensen discloses wherein the cleaning chemical is at least one of a sanitizing agent and a detergent (col. 6, line 23).
Regarding claim 6, Christensen discloses wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor (optical measuring in col. 4, lines 45-46).
Regarding claim 7, Christensen discloses wherein the pressure sensor comprises a fluid port positioned adjacent a bottom surface of the reservoir and a conduct extending out of the reservoir for communicating a pressure signal (col. 5, lines 20-38).
Regarding claim 8, Christensen discloses wherein the user interface is operatively connected to the reservoir (col. 5, line 30).
Regarding claim 9, Christensen discloses wherein: the reservoir comprises a bottom wall and an upwardly-extending sidewall, at least a portion of the sensor is contained within a housing, and the housing is attached to the upwardly-extending sidewall (fig. 7; col. 5, lines 20-38).
Regarding claim 10, Christensen discloses wherein the housing defines a slot, and the slot is positioned over an edge of the upwardly-extending sidewall to attach the housing to the upwardly-extending sidewall (fig. 7; col. 5, lines 20-38).
Regarding claim 11, Christensen discloses wherein the reservoir is a bucket (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Christensen discloses wherein the user interface comprises one or both of a speaker and a light (light in col. 1, lines 36-50).
Regarding claim 13, Christensen discloses wherein the expiration time is within a range from 30 minutes to 4 hours (time clock in col. 8, line 58).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 would be allowed if the double patenting rejection overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with all the limitations in the claims, the prior arts fail to teach or make obvious:
filling a reservoir with a cleaning chemical; introducing a cleaning implement into the reservoir, wherein introducing the cleaning implement into the reservoir causes a sensor operatively coupled to the reservoir to detect at least one of movement of the cleaning chemical and a pressure change of the cleaning chemical in response to the cleaning implement being introduced into the reservoir; and upon reaching an expiration time of the cleaning chemical determined based on detected addition of the cleaning implement to the reservoir, receiving a user alert.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klainer et al. (US 4,892,383) discloses reservoir fiber optic chemical sensors.
O’Brien (US 2019/0389716) discloses level sensing apparatus.
Ott et al. (US 10,624,992) discloses human airway…..engineering.
Tokhtuev et al. (US 8,373,140) discloses fluorometric sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 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, Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
November 11, 2025
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685