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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “WC” in claim 1, lines 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, 19, and 21, claims 2-12, line 1, claim 5, line 3, claim 10, line 5, and claim 11, line 2 should be amended to remove the acronym.
In claim 1, line 9, “contact surfaces” should read --said two contact surfaces--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(s) 1-12 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a spray container” in line 4. It is unclear if this language is intended to refer to the spray container recited in line 2, or an additional spray container. For examination purposes, “a spray container” in line 4 is interpreted to refer to the spray container recited in line 2.
Claim 1 recites “the bowl interior” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the bowl interior” is interpreted to read --a bowl interior--.
Claim 1 recites “the rim” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the rim” is interpreted to read --a rim--.
Claim 1 recites “an actuating element” in lines 8-9. It is unclear if this language is intended to refer to the actuating element recited in line 4, or an additional actuating element. For examination purposes, “an actuating element” in lines 8-9 is interpreted to refer to the actuating element recited in line 4.
Claim 1 recites “the sides” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the sides” is interpreted to read --sides--.
Claim 1 recites “the WC seat” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the WC seat” is interpreted to read --a WC seat--.
Claim 1 recites “the upper bowl rim” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the upper bowl rim” is interpreted to refer to “the rim” recited in line 5.
Claim 1 recites “the height” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the height” is interpreted to read --a height--.
Claim 1 recites “a second end” in line 20. It is unclear if this language is intended to refer to the second end recited in line 17, or an additional second end. For examination purposes, “a second end” in line 20 is interpreted to refer to the second end recited in line 17.
Claim 1 recites “the bottom side” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the bottom side” is interpreted to read --a bottom side--.
Claim 1 recites “the region” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the region” is interpreted to read --a region--.
Claim 1 recites “preferably” in lines 22 and 25. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitation(s) following the phrase are interpreted as not part of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “a flexible tube” in line 2. It is unclear if this language is intended to refer to the flexible tube recited in claim 1, line 13, or an additional flexible tube. For examination purposes, “a flexible tube” in line 2 is interpreted to refer to the flexible tube recited in claim 1, line 13.
Claim 3 recites “preferably” in line 2. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitation(s) following the phrase are interpreted as not part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “the center axis” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the center axis” is interpreted to read --a center axis--.
Claim 5 recites “the side facing the WC bowl” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the side facing the WC bowl” is interpreted to read --a side facing the WC bowl--.
Claim 6 recites “teardrop-like” in line 3. The term " like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites “preferably” in line 2. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitation(s) following the phrase are interpreted as not part of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “several parts, at least two parts” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the fastening device is in several parts (i.e., more than two) or is at least two parts (i.e., two or more). For examination purposes, this language is interpreted to read --at least two parts--.
Claim 11 recites “a spray container” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this language is intended to refer to the spray container recited in claim 1, line 2, the spray container recited in claim 1, line 4, or an additional spray container. For examination purposes, this language is interpreted to refer to the spray container recited in claim 1, line 2.
Claim 11 recites “an actuating element” in line 3. It is unclear if this language is intended to refer to the actuating element recited in claim 1, line 4, the actuating element recited in claim 1, lines 8-9, or an additional actuating element. For examination purposes, this language is interpreted to refer to the actuating element recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 11 recites “preferably” in line 3. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitation(s) following the phrase are interpreted as not part of the claimed invention.
Any remaining dependent claim(s) are indefinite insofar as they depend on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leland (US 3336603).
Regarding claim 1, Leland discloses a WC-deodorizing device comprising:
a fastening device (40-41) for a spray container (20) on an outside (see Fig. 1-2) of a WC bowl (12),
a tube system (25-29) which can be connected to an actuating element (36) of a spray container (20) and leads into the bowl interior (interior of 12) via the rim (32) of the WC bowl (see Fig. 2), wherein
the WC-deodorizing device comprises an ergonomically shaped grip element (22 is rounded and therefore ergonomically shaped), wherein the grip element comprises a central receiving opening (34) for an actuating element (36) and two contact surfaces (two surfaces near the opening 34) for fingers, which contact surfaces are arranged to the sides of the receiving opening (see Fig. 5),
the grip element comprises a connector (21, 37) for connection to the spray container (see Fig. 5),
the tube system comprises a flexible tube (col. 2, ll. 40-43) which leads into the interior (interior of 12) of the WC bowl between the WC seat (15-16) and the upper bowl rim (34) of the WC bowl (see Fig. 2),
the flexible tube is, at a first end (end near 36) thereof, connected to the actuating element (see Fig. 5) at the height of a dispensing opening of the spray container (see Fig. 2 and 5) and, at a second end thereof, comprises an outlet opening (outlet opening of 28 near 31),
the WC-deodorizing device furthermore comprises a positioning element (31, 50) that is fastened to a second end (end of 28 connecting to 31) of the tube and is positioned in the bowl interior of the WC bowl (see Fig. 2),
the positioning element contains a counterweight (50; col. 2, ll. 43-47), preferably on the bottom side thereof, and
the tube ends, with the second end thereof, in the positioning element (see Fig. 2 and 5) and the outlet opening is preferably arranged in the region of the positioning element.
Regarding claim 2, Leland discloses the tube system is composed of a flexible tube (col. 2, ll. 40-43).
Regarding claim 4, Leland discloses the grip element is embodied in mirror symmetry relative to the center axis (22 is mirror-symmetrical, see Fig. 2-5).
Regarding claim 5, Leland discloses the grip element comprises an opening (29) on the side facing the WC bowl (see Fig. 2 and 5) and the flexible tube is guided through the opening (see Fig. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Leland discloses the positioning element is a plastic part or a metal part (col. 2, ll. 43-47) which is formed to be funnel-shaped (see Fig. 2 and 5), teardrop-like, round (see Fig. 2 and 5), or oval and is slid over the tube (see Fig. 2 and 5; col. 2, ll. 43-47).
Regarding claim 7, Leland discloses the counterweight is a metal body (col. 2, ll. 43-47) that is preferably completely surrounded by the positioning element.
Regarding claim 8, Leland discloses the positioning element is asymmetrical (31 is shown to be asymmetrical in Fig. 2 and 5) and/or the counterweight is decentrally arranged in the positioning element.
Regarding claim 9, Leland discloses the connector comprises a screw lock, a buckle lock, a magnet lock, or a clip lock (col. 2, ll. 2-7).
Regarding claim 11, Leland discloses the WC-deodorizing device comprises a spray container (20) with an actuating element (36) and the actuating element is preferably a spray head.
Regarding claim 12, Leland discloses the spray container is a compressed gas container (col. 1, l. 72 - col. 2, l. 7) or a pump spray container.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland (US 3336603) in view of Huitron (US 20200181898).
Regarding claim 3, Leland discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
Leland further discloses the tube preferably has an inner diameter between 0.5 mm and 10 mm, preferably 0.5 mm and 2 mm; however, Leland does not disclose the flexible tube is a silicone tube or a plastic tube as claimed.
Huitron discloses an automatic toilet bowl cleaning apparatus and methods wherein disclose the flexible tube is a silicone tube or a plastic tube (¶ 0029). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the flexible tube of Leland, to be plastic as claimed, as taught by Huitron, since it was known in the art that vinyl plastic is a suitable material to construct flexible tubes (¶ 0029).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland (US 3336603) in view of Sternitzky (US 20220145606).
Regarding claim 10, Leland discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
Leland further discloses the fastening device is in several parts, at least two parts (40-41); however, Leland does not disclose two magnets, wherein a first magnet is fastened on or in the grip element and a second magnet, which interacts with said first magnet, is fastened to the outside of the WC bowl as claimed.
Sternitzky discloses a force actuated liquid dispenser including two magnets (¶ 0027), wherein a first magnet (¶ 0027) is fastened on or in the grip element (116, 118, 104) and a second magnet (¶ 0027), which interacts with said first magnet (¶ 0027), is fastened to the outside of the WC bowl (400). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the fastening device of Leland, to include magnets as claimed, as taught by Sternitzky, since it was known in the art that magnets are a form of mounts that can be used to secure a member to a toilet (¶ 0027).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Page (US 9376794) is directed to the state of the art as disclosing a toilet bowl deodorizer fixture including a nozzle (16), a nut (22), a tube (15), a diaphragm (3), and a fluid reservoir (9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KLOTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11AM-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, David P Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
WILLIAM R. KLOTZ
Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754