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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election of group 1: claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-16 are hereby withdrawn.
IDS
The IDS’ entered 09/08/2023 and 02/18/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gavin of record (US1289151).
Gavin discloses a manufacturing method for a toilet blank (claim 1) comprising a grouting step comprising grouting a seat mold (44, 45, fig.7), an inner container mold (32, 33, 34, fig.4), and a main body mold independent of each other, respectively (23, 24, 25, fig.3), to produce a seat blank (F), an inner container blank (E), and a main body blank (C, pg.2, ll105-114);
a first demolding step, comprising demolding a part of the main body mold (23, 24, 25) from the main body blank (C) to expose a bonding surface of the main body blank (C); demolding a part of the inner container mold (32, 33, 34) from the inner container blank (E) to expose a first bonding surface of the inner container blank (E); and demolding a part of the seat mold (44, 45) from the seat blank (F) to expose a bonding surface of the seat blank (F, pg.2,ll114-129);
a first bonding step comprising placing the inner container mold (33, 34) on the main body mold (24) to bond the first bonding surface of the inner container blank (E) and the bonding surface of the main body blank (C) to each other (fig.11, pg.2,ll114-129);
a second demolding step comprising demolding another part of the inner container mold (33) from the inner container blank (E) to expose a second bonding surface of the inner container blank (E, fig.11, pg. 2,ll114-129 in connection with col.3, ll55-62);
a second bonding step comprising placing the seat mold (44) on the main body mold (24) to bond the bonding surface of the seat blank (F) and the second bonding surface of the inner container blank (E) to each other; and
a third demolding step comprising demolding non-demolded parts of the seat mold (44), the inner container mold (34), and the main body mold (24) from a bonded toilet blank (fig.11), wherein the steps of the first demolding step can be performed in any order, and after the first demolding step is performed, the first bonding step, the second demolding step, the second bonding step, and the third demolding step are sequentially performed (pg.2, ll35-pg.3, ll62).
While the second bonding step of Gavin recites placing the seat mold on the main body mold instead of directly the inner container mold, “on” is interpreted in broadest sense which includes placing without it being directly placed, therefore other parts may be in between.
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.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavin of record (US1289151) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-3, Gavin teaches that demolding occurs as parts become appropriately dry (page 2, col.2, ll110-130) but is not specific to wherein in the first demolding step, an upper mold of the main body mold is demolded from the main body blank, a bottom mold of the inner container mold is demolded from the inner container blank, and a bottom mold of the seat mold is demolded from the seat blank; and wherein the third demolding step comprises demolding an upper mold of the seat mold from the seat blank; and demolding the remaining molds of the main body mold from the main body blank.
In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have demolded parts in any desired timing to arrive at the claimed method since the skilled artisan would have expected that parts could be demolded once they were appropriately dried as taught by Gavin (page 2, col.2, ll110-117).
Regarding claim 4, Gavin teaches wherein in the first bonding step, before the inner container blank and the main body blank are bonded to each other, a relative position between the inner container blank and the main body blank is located using the non-demolded part of the inner container mold and the non-demolded part of the main body mold (page 2, col.2, ll105-130, body still within molds, page 3, col.1, ll1-5, “positioned”).
Regarding claim 5, Gavin teaches wherein in the second bonding step, before the inner container blank and the seat blank are bonded to each other, a relative position between the inner container blank and the seat blank is located using the non-demolded part of the seat mold and the non-demolded part of the main body mold (page 2, col.2, ll105-130, body still within molds, page 3, col.1, ll1-5, “positioned”).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Gavin teaches wherein the main body mold at least comprises an upper mold and a side mold, and in the first bonding step and the second bonding step, the relative position between the inner container blank and the main body blank and a relative position between the inner container blank and the seat blank is located using the side mold of the main body mold (page 2, col.2, ll105-130, body still within side molds, page 3, col.1, ll1-5, “positioned”).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 11-12, Gavin teaches that the parts are positioned using the alignment of relative joined faces and secured by slip (page 3, col.1, ll15-23) but Gavin is silent to wherein a first locating structure is arranged on the side mold of the main body mold, and a second locating structure and a third locating structure that can match the first locating structure in shape, are arranged on an upper mold of the inner container mold, and on the upper mold of the seat mold, respectively; and wherein the first locating structure comprises at least one locating hole, and the second locating structure and the third locating structure comprise at least one locating detent corresponding to the at least one locating hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a hole/detent pair for alignment to arrive at the claimed method since the skilled artisan would have expected a precise alignment ensuring the functioning of the final toilet and there are a limited number of ways to ensure alignment.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Gavin teaches wherein between steps of the third demolding step, holes are drilled on the toilet blank (page 3, col.1, ll23-33).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights