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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Christensen is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, claim 1 states only “ a method” in the preamble, Christensen further discloses chemical solution, automatic ware-washing (col. 6, lines 16-39); therefore Christensen is indeed analogous to the claimed invention.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Christensen and Jin are directed to the same field of endeavor, therefore, the combination is indeed proper.
For at least the above reason, the rejection of claims 1-13 is sustained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
July 2, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights