DETAILED ACTION
Non Final
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 01/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
It is noted that upon review, no claim terminology was determined to be of sufficient means plus function nonce/style language so as to invoke 35 USC 112 6th paragraph. Any generic terms appeared to be sufficiently modified by their either prepository terms, modifiers or use in the art to take any generic terms out of potential scope of 112 6th. It is noted that during prosecution the claim language may change and thus there is no final disposition on such interpretation until time as the claims may issue.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rodenbeck (US 8162236);
Claim(s) 2 and 12, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodenbeck as applied to claims 1 and 11, 15 above, and further in view of Jin (US 11144792);
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodenbeck as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Rodenbeck (US 11458214, herein after Rodenbeck’214);
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodenbeck as applied to claims 15 above, and further in view of Park (US 10233621.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 1: A system for controlling a faucet (figure 13H Col 9 ln 40-50 for controller interoperability), the system comprising: a faucet (130/131) including a spout (outlet of 130/131) configured to direct a fluid into a sink (see figure 26); an image sensor (674 as implemented as a CCD camera Col 35 ln 25-35) configured to collect image data (per Col 40 ln 48-68 to Col 41 ln 3, where embodiment of figure 13E, Figure 26 and controller 120 of Col 40 are part of an interoperable system per Col 9 ln 40-50); and a processor (120/166) configured to analyze the image data and assign a classification (object type and presentment) to an object included in the image data (id), select a flow attribute (valve adjustment) based on the assigned classification (id), and cause the faucet to direct a flow of fluid having the selected flow attribute into the sink (as discussed, the CCD camera and processor will identify the object and execute the task of dispensing the water for the particular object in the sink.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 11: A faucet comprising (figure 13H Col 9 ln 40-50 for controller interoperability): a spout (130/131 and see figure 26) configured to direct a flow of water into a sink; an image sensor (674 as implemented as a CCD camera Col 35 ln 25-35) configured to collect image data (per Col 40 ln 48-68 to Col 41 ln 3, where embodiment of figure 13E, Figure 26 and controller 120 of Col 40 are part of an interoperable system per Col 9 ln 40-50); and a processor (120/166) configured to analyze the image data and assign a classification (object type and presentment) to an object included in the image data (id), select a flow attribute (valve adjustment) based on the assigned classification (id), and cause the faucet to direct a flow of fluid having the selected flow attribute into the sink (as discussed, the CCD camera and processor will identify the object and execute the task of dispensing the water for the particular object in the sink.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claims 2 and 12: further comprising: a [the image] sensor configured to detect an object below the spout (as discussed Col 40 ln 48-68), wherein the image sensor is configured to collect image data in response to the range sensor detecting an object below the faucet; Rodenbeck does not disclose: a range distance sensor; but Jin teaches: a CCD/camera (200 figure 11) and a range distance sensor (400), to identify the object and then providing real time feedback of the filling of the cup (figure 12), all for the purpose of accurate liquid supply.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Rodenbeck as taught in Jin with both a CCD/camera and a range distance sensor as taught in Jin so as to identify the object and then providing real time feedback of the filling of the cup, all for the purpose of accurate liquid supply.
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 3: The system of claim 1, further comprising: a water selection valve (diverter valve 195) configured to provide a selected fluid type to the faucet, wherein the selected fluid type is tap water (to the primary spout) from a plumbing network or [filtered] pH controlled water from a (filtered) pH controlled water tank (the water is pH adjusted by removing either minerals or acidic contaminants via carbon filter, via 197, chilled 204 or Heated 205 tanks.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 4: The system of claim 1, the selected fluid type is tap water from a plumbing network, ozone water, or electro chlorinated water; Rodenbeck does not disclose: an ozone generator or electro chlorine generator (the alterative language indicating an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) configured to selectively entrain ozone in a flow of water supplied to the faucet or supply electro chlorinated water to the faucet based on a selected fluid type; but Rodenbeck ‘214 teaches: an ozone generator (44 figure 2) configured to selectively entrain ozone in a flow of water supplied to the faucet (12) based on a selected fluid type (filtration) and all for the purpose of providing clean water.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Rodenbeck as taught in Rodenbeck’214, an ozone generator configured to selectively entrain ozone in a flow of water supplied to the faucet as taught in Rodenbeck’214 and based on a selected fluid type such as filtration, and all for the purpose of providing clean water.
Rodenbeck discloses in claims 5 and 13: wherein the faucet further comprises: an inlet (hot 110 or cold 114 into EPV 152 and outlet of 152 to inlet of 195) configured to receive a fluid (water); a first set of one or more outlets disposed at the spout (spray of 130) and configured to dispense a flow of water having a first flow type; a second set of one or more outlets (aerated of 130) disposed at the spout and configured to dispense a flow of water having a second flow type; and a flow type valve (195) configured to selectively provide the fluid received at the inlet to one of the first set of one or more outlets and the second set of one or more outlets based on the selected flow attribute (spray or aeration, or laminar via pot filler or filtered via tanks 203/205 to filtered spout.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 6: The system of claim 5, further comprising: a first set of channels (the spray channels of 130) extending between the inlet and the first set of one or more outlets; and a second set of channels (the aerated channels of 130) extending between the inlet and the second set of one or more outlets, wherein the flow type valve is configured to selectively provide the fluid received at the inlet to the first set of channels or the second set of channels (as shown.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 7: The system of claim 5, wherein the first flow type is one of (the following considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) a soft spray (spray of 130), a sweeping flow, and a laminar flow and the second flow type is a different one (MPEP 2131) of the soft spray, the sweeping flow, and the laminar flow (aerated laminar flow of 130.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 8: The system of claim 1, wherein the selected flow attribute is a fluid type including one of (the following considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) tap water (from the water line to the spout 130), pH controlled water (via filter as discussed), ozone water, electro chlorinated water, temperature controlled water (chilled or heated water), or filtered water (i.e. filtered via 197.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claims 9 and 14: wherein the processor is configured to analyze the image data and assign a cleanliness classification (i.e. washing foodstuffs) to the object and cause the spout to direct fluid into the sink (light spray) having at least one of a flow rate or a flow duration based on the assigned cleanliness classification (Col 40 ln 55 - 60.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 15: [An apparatus that can execute] A method of controlling a faucet (executed via system in figure 13H as relating to Figure 1 and see Col 9 ln 40-50 for controller interoperability), the method comprising: receiving, by a processor (120/166), image data from an image sensor disposed on a faucet (that of figure 13H as applied to figure 26); analyzing, by the processor, the image data to assign a classification (object type and presentment) to an object included in the image data; selecting a flow attribute (valve adjustment) based on the assigned classification; and dispensing a flow of fluid from the faucet having the flow attribute into a sink (as discussed, the CCD camera and processor will identify the object and execute the task of dispensing the water for the particular object in the sink.)
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 16: The method of claim 15, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, [image] data from [the image] sensor (as discussed Col 40 ln 48-68), the [image] data indicating a presence of the object below the faucet; Rodenbeck does not disclose: a range distance sensor; but Jin (US 11144792) teaches: a CCD/camera (200 figure 11) and a range distance sensor (400), to identify the object and then providing real time feedback of the filling of the cup (figure 12), all for the purpose of accurate liquid supply.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Rodenbeck as taught in Jin with both a CCD/camera and a range distance sensor as taught in Jin so as to identify the object and then providing real time feedback of the filling of the cup, all for the purpose of accurate liquid supply.
Rodenbeck discloses (as modified for the reasons discussed above) in claim 17: The method of claim 16, wherein the image data is generated by the image sensor and sent to the processor (of Rodenbeck at 120/166) in response to the processor receiving the range data (as modified by Jin for the reason discussed above) from the range sensor (the CCD…) indicating the presence of the object below the faucet.
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 18: The method of claim 15, wherein the selecting a flow attribute comprises cross-referencing, by the processor, the classification assigned to the object with a look-up table (necessarily in the memory of the controller 166) configured to store a plurality of classifications and a corresponding flow attribute; if it could be persuasively argued at some future unforeseen date that Rodenbeck does not explicitly disclose: an object look-up table classifications correlated to flow attributes; Park teaches: an object look-up table classifications (stored in memory Col 7 ln 29-51 and Col 8 ln 49-65) correlated to flow attributes (provided for the purpose of providing a smart water supply system that is user configurable and readily executable during use.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to provide Rodenbeck as taught in Park, an object look-up table classifications stored in memory and that are correlated to flow attributes, all provided for the purpose of providing a smart water supply system that is user configurable and readily executable during use.
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 19: The method of claim 15, further comprising: generating, by the processor, one or more control signals for controlling (the use of “one or more” considered an alternative grouping under MPEP 2131) a mixing valve (EPV 152 figure 13H), water selection valve (195/193), flow controller (EPV 152 and see Col 10 ln 17-19 for both temperature and flow control), electro chlorine generator, ozone generator.
Rodenbeck discloses in claim 20: The method of claim 15, further comprising: analyzing, by the processor, the image data to assign a cleanliness classification (washing foodstuffs) to the object included in the image data (Col 40 ln 55 - 60.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious “the processor is configured to analyze the image data and classify a surface adjacent to the faucet, analyze the image data and classify a volume of fluid on the surface, and control the faucet to reduce a flow rate of fluid directed into the sink or change a flow type of fluid directed into the sink or change a state of drain valve” in combination with the other limitations set forth above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 MATTHEW W JELLETT, whose telephone number is 571-270-7497. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Ken 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 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.
/Matthew W Jellett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753