DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, as well as all claims depending therefrom, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The new limitations that “the flange bolt… is prevented from extending into the upper aperture portion by the lower edge of the rib” lacks support in the original application. There is no written disclosure to support the limitation and the drawings do not clearly show any specific structure for the ribs that would support the limitation. Therefore, for the sake of the current Office Action, they will not be considered with the remainder of the pending claims as currently amended, as best supported by the original application.
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 13 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. Due to the amendments to claim 1, which introduce the rib to the upper aperture portion, claim 13 is now unclear because it is best understood that the rib is what provides the taper to the upper aperture portion. However, claim 13 now introduces the taper, while the rib is also previously claimed, such that it confuses the scope of the claim by suggesting a taper in addition to the rib. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the rib forms a downward tapering shape to the upper aperture portion and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lower edge of the rib preventing the flange bolt from extending into the upper aperture portion (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12-14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2012/0034049) in view of Iwinski et al. (6,626,067) and Stamm et al. (D747,944) and/or Shyu (2004/0103763).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses an installation tool assembly that is inherently capable of use for affixing a concealed trapway toilet having no side access holes to the floor, the tool assembly comprising an installation wrench (10) and an installation nut (28), wherein the wrench comprises a lower end (26a of extension 26), inherently capable of being inserted through a toilet seat post hole and to removably couple to a nut upper aperture (16), the nut comprises a lower aperture (30) having a threaded portion that is inherently capable of be threadingly coupled to a flange bolt (threaded aperture makes the nut inherently capable of being coupled to any type of bolt having a corresponding thread), and the nut upper aperture and nut lower aperture are concentrically aligned. However, Brown fails to disclose that the wrench is T-shapes, or disclose any specific ratio of the handle length to the wrench length. Each of Stamm and Shyu disclose known wrenches having a T-shape, which are understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to provide increased reach length due to the longitudinal length of the wrench over traditional wrenches (such as 10 of Brown), and also provide increased torque from a user due to the pair of opposed handles (allowing torque to be effectively doubled by applying a force to both handles) with a reduced length of each handle (compared to the length needed to provide equivalent torque from a single handle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally engage the nut of Brown with either of the wrenches taught by Stamm or Shyu, for all of the known advantages over the wrench of Brown.
Regarding the amended claim 1, filed 25 June 2025, the limitation previously set forth as claim 5, the wrenches of Stamm and Shyu may both be considered to be formed as a unitary construct (each wrench is clearly shown as a single unit). Based on the arguments, it is understood that the applicant believes the term “unitary construct” to define only a single piece, wherein the wrench of Stamm is considered to be unitary when the hammer end caps are removed, as shown in Fig. 8.
Regarding the amendments to claim 1, as filed 27 January 2025, the toilet disclosed by the applicant does include a rear access hole, which would allow a user to position any nut in the required position and would be capable of driving the nut via the wrenches taught by Stamm and/or Shyu in the same manner, such that the installation tool assembly made obvious by the prior art will be inherently capable of securing the specific type of toilet as claimed.
Further, based on the thread size shown by Brown, a bolt (including a toilet flange bolt) would not be capable of extending beyond the nut lower aperture threaded portion. As discussed supra, it would have been obvious to provide nuts in a wide range of sizes to fit different thread size and types, it would have been obvious for any configuration of the nut disclosed by Brown that has a lower aperture thread diameter smaller (decreased from shown) than the width of the upper aperture and/or a larger (increased from shown) upper aperture (to fit different sized wrenches) than the lower aperture diameter, would allow a longer bolt to extend beyond the nut lower aperture threaded portion, so that the bolt will not require cutting (see MPEP 2144.04, section IV-A, wherein the only variation to the nut of Brown to allow a bolt to pass through the upper aperture, would be a change in size to the threads and/or upper aperture, which would be obvious to accommodate different sized bolts and/or driving tools).
Finally, regarding claim 13 and the amendments to claim 1, as filed 8 April 2026, Brown discloses the upper aperture for engagement with a wrench, as discussed supra, but fails to disclose that the aperture includes a rib to be is downwardly tapered to grip the wrench or forms a width smaller than the width/diameter of the middle portion of the aperture(s). Iwinski discloses a configuration for sockets and wrenches having an aperture with downwardly tapered ribs on internal walls, to effectively grip a fastener via wedging action when the socket is pressed onto the fastener head. Additionally, Iwinski discloses that the engagement between a square wrench protrusion and corresponding socket aperture may also include downwardly tapered ribs (35a, 36a) on the side walls on the male wrench protrusion (Figs. 11-12) to provide the same wedging/gripping function. Finally, Iwinski also discloses that the principles [tapered walls for wedging/gripping] applied are also applicable to any socketed device which is adapted to receive an excoriated male member, and vice versa (Col. 7, line 55 – Col. 8, line 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide the protrusion of the wrench taught by Brown (similar to Figs. 11-12 of Iwinski) or to provide the upper aperture of the nut of Brown (as the alternative taught by Iwinski), with similar downward tapered ribs on at least one of the side walls to provide the wedging/gripping action between the wrench and upper aperture when engaged with one another. Further, the ribs disclosed by Iwinski only extend along a portion of the overall length of the respective engaging portion of the wrench protrusion in Figs. 11-12, such that it also would have been obvious to alternatively form the rib on the inside wall of the recess of the nut of Brown, along only a portion of the length of the engaging aperture, to provide a similar function to the aperture as the alternative ribs formed on the wrench protrusion. Thus, when the downwardly tapering rib(s) is provided to a portion of the aperture (16) of Brown, as discussed above, the area between the end of the rib and the threaded aperture (30) will read on a middle portion, wherein the portion of the upper aperture with the rib will define a portion of the upper aperture with a smaller width than the width of the middle portion of the aperture (any portion having the rib therein will have a small internal spacing between the rib and an opposed wall than a middle portion that does not have the rib).
Regarding claims 2-4, the variation of the length of the wrench and handle, as discussed immediately above, would also make obvious each of the claimed handle length ranges, wrench length ranges of claims 2 and 3 and the additional ratio of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, each of Brown, Stamm and Shyu further disclose that each of the installation wrenches comprises a square-shaped cross-section , and Brown discloses that the nut upper aperture comprises a corresponding square-shaped cross-section to removable couple to the wrench lower end.
Regarding claim 12, Brown further discloses that the nut upper aperture comprises one or more features (16a) configured to provide a snug fit of the wrench in the nut (by engaging with a corresponding ball on shaft 14; paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 14, Brown further discloses that the nut is a unitary construct.
Regarding claim 23 (previously included in claim 1), although none of Brown, Stamm or Shyu disclose any specific ratio of the handle length to wrench length, the examiner previously took official notice, which was not traversed by the applicant and is therefore now considered to be applicant admitted prior art, that it is very well known in the art to vary the length of a wrench, to adapt the wrench to different applications, including access to hard to reach areas. It is also a well-known engineering concept, that the length of the handle directly effects the leverage a user is able to apply to turn a fastener with the wrench. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the length of the handle and/or the length of the wrenches of Stamm and/or Shyu to adapt the wrench for different applications by increasing/decreasing wrench length for different access and handle length for different torque applications, making obvious the claimed range of a ratio of about 0.18-0.3. Further, the application fails to place any criticality on the claimed ratio or either of the wrench or handle lengths, such that the only variation to the prior art of Brown would be to the relative dimension(s) of at least one of the two major components, effectively a change in size, wherein the device of Brown would not perform differently than the claimed invention when the length(s) are changed (see MPEP 2144.04, section IV-A).
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (2015/0368891) in view of Brown (2012/0034049), Stamm et al. (D747,944) and/or Shyu (2004/0103763).
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses an installation tool assembly for a toilet comprising a wrench (30 effectively functions as a wrench to rotate a nut) and a nut (20), wherein the wrench is configured to be removable coupled to the upper end of the nut, the nut comprising a lower aperture having a threaded portion configured to threadingly couple to a flange bolt (10) and the nut also having an upper aperture concentrically aligned with the lower aperture. However, Miller fails to disclose that the wrench is T-shaped or configured to be removably coupled to the nut via an upper aperture of the nut. Brown is in the same field of endeavor of nuts and bolts and teaches that the upper aperture of the nut is configured to be removably engaged by a standard wrench square male protrusion to be removably coupled to the nut, wherein the engagement with the upper aperture secures the wrench to the nut, such that the user may easily install the nut and may also install within limited spaces by direct engagement with the wrench (10 of Brown) or hard to reach locations using an extension (26), also taught by Brown. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made configure the nut of Miller with an upper aperture that is capable of being engaged by a standard wrench square male protrusion in the same manner as the nut of Brown, to allow for easier installation of the nut using the process disclosed by Brown. Further, each of Stamm and Shyu disclose known wrenches having a T-shape, which are understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to provide increased reach length due to the longitudinal length of the wrench over traditional wrenches (such as 10 of Brown), and also provide increased torque from a user due to the pair of opposed handles (allowing torque to be effectively doubled by applying a force to both handles) with a reduced length of each handle (compared to the length needed to provide equivalent torque from a single handle). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally engage the upper nut aperture taught by Brown with either of the wrenches taught by Stamm or Shyu, for all of the known advantages over alternative configuration of the wrench of Brown.
Regarding the amended claim 1, filed 25 June 2025, the limitation previously set forth as claim 5, the wrenches of Stamm and Shyu may both be considered to be formed as a unitary construct (each wrench is clearly shown as a single unit). Based on the arguments, it is understood that the applicant believes the term “unitary construct” to define only a single piece, wherein the wrench of Stamm is considered to be unitary when the hammer end caps are removed, as shown in Fig. 8.
Regarding the amendments to claim 1, as filed 27 January 2025, the toilet disclosed by the applicant does include a rear access hole, which would allow a user to position any nut in the required position and would be capable of driving the nut via the wrenches taught by Stamm and/or Shyu in the same manner, such that the installation tool assembly made obvious by the prior art will be inherently capable of securing the specific type of toilet as claimed. Further, based on the diameters of the respective upper and lower apertures, as shown by Miller, the nut will allow a longer bolt to extend beyond the nut lower aperture threaded portion, so that the bolt will not require cutting.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Finally, regarding the amendments to claim 1, as filed 8 April 2026, the socket of Miller defines the lower aperture having a first diameter (at A) sized for threading engagement with the flange bolt, a middle aperture portion having a second width/diameter (B) larger than the first diameter and sized to allow threads of the flange bolt to translate freely through the middle aperture portion, and the upper aperture having ribs therein defining a width (C; defined between tabs 27) between the ribs that is smaller than the second diameter, wherein the upper aperture taught by Brown will allow for a snug fit to the wrench, as intended to engage with the wrench.
Regarding claims 2-4, the variation of the length of the wrench and handle, as discussed immediately above, would also make obvious each of the claimed handle length ranges, wrench length ranges of claims 2 and 3 and the additional ratio of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, each of Brown, Stamm and Shyu further disclose that each of the installation wrenches comprises a square-shaped cross-section , and Brown discloses that the nut upper aperture comprises a corresponding square-shaped cross-section to removable couple to the wrench lower end.
Regarding claim 8, Miller further discloses that the nut comprises a substantially disc-shaped lower base section (24) and an upper section (25).
Regarding claim 10, Miller further discloses that the nut comprises an engineering thermoplastic polymer (paragraph 36, wherein the term “engineering” does not provide any additional structure or properties to the material, with effectively any material that is man-made for a specific purpose being considered to be an “engineering” material).
Regarding claim 12, Brown further discloses that the nut upper aperture comprises one or more features (16a) configured to provide a snug fit of the wrench in the nut (by engaging with a corresponding ball on shaft 14; paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 14, Miller and Brown both further disclose that the nut is a unitary construct.
Regarding claim 15, Miller further discloses that the nut lower aperture comprises a thermoplastic threaded portion configured to prevent over-tightening (as previously discussed, Miller discloses the nut as being formed of thermoplastic, wherein any threaded component, regardless of material, will have a limited capacity for torque, with thermoplastic typically being substantially less than more common metal fasteners ,thus effectively preventing over-tightening).
Regarding claim 16, Miller discloses that the nut may be formed from thermoplastic and a wide range of other materials (paragraph 35). The examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known for wrenches to commonly be formed from metal, typically steel, known to be strong and readily available for manufacture of tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that use of a standard steel wrench, along with the nut of Miller, when formed of any of the plural materials other than steel, that the materials will be dissimilar.
Regarding claim 17, Miller discloses that the nut is formed from a thermoplastic polymer, as discussed supra, wherein the toilet is not claimed as part of the invention and thus, there is no material claimed for the toilet. Therefore, the nut of Miller is inherently capable of being used with a toilet that is formed from a different thermoplastic polymer than the nut.
Further, although none of Brown, Stamm or Shyu disclose any specific ratio of the handle length to wrench length, the examiner previously took official notice, which was not traversed by the applicant and is therefore now considered to be applicant admitted prior art, that it is very well known in the art to vary the length of a wrench, to adapt the wrench to different applications, including access to hard to reach areas. It is also a well-known engineering concept, that the length of the handle directly effects the leverage a user is able to apply to turn a fastener with the wrench. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the length of the handle and/or the length of the wrenches of Stamm and/or Shyu to adapt the wrench for different applications by increasing/decreasing wrench length for different access and handle length for different torque applications, making obvious the claimed range of a ratio of about 0.18-0.3. Further, the application fails to place any criticality on the claimed ratio or either of the wrench or handle lengths, such that the only variation to the prior art of Brown would be to the relative dimension(s) of at least one of the two major components, effectively a change in size, wherein the device of Brown would not perform differently than the claimed invention when the length(s) are changed (see MPEP 2144.04, section IV-A).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2012/0034049) in view of Iwinski et al. (6,626,067) and Stamm et al. (D747,944) and/or Shyu (2004/0103763), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ohashi (JP 4818304 B2).
Brown discloses the nut as disclosed supra, but fails to disclose any specific materials for the nut. Ohashi discloses a nut, specifically formed from polyphenylene sulfide resin, with plural advantages including excellent wear resistance, low cost and self-lubricating (English language translation of Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the nut of Brown from a similar polyphenylene sulfide resin, as taught by Ohashi, any time that a resin nut would be appropriate, to provide the nut with all the same advantages as taught by Ohashi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections, see Remarks, filed 8 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues that the Iwinski and Brown references both fail to disclose the middle portion of the aperture as claimed. However, as discussed above in the rejections, the overall length of the aperture, starting with a threaded portion and ending at an opposite side with a tool engaging portion, as taught by Brown, would obviously vary depending on the desired length of the fastener. Additionally, the middle aperture portion, as effectively claimed to extend from the threaded portion to the lower edge of the rib, would also depend on the length of the rib. Thus, the combination of the length of the nut being a known dimension that may vary depending on application, as well as the teaching of Iwinski that the ribs may extend a length that is not the entire length of the portion of the aperture for engaging with the tool, are still considered to make the amended claims obvious.
The applicant then argues that the nut of Miller does not read on the new limitation that the threaded portion is prevented from extending into the upper aperture portion by the lower edge of the rib. However, as addressed in the rejections above, the limitation is not supported in the original application, and is not being considered with the current claims. Therefore the combination of Miller with Brown, Stamm and/or Shyu is considered to make obvious all of the pending claim limitations that are supported by the original application.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
18 May 2026
Prosecution Insights