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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland (US 3178070; hereinafter Leland ‘070) in view of Bartlett (US 6003739).
Regarding claim 1, Leland ‘ 070 discloses a water closet deodorizing device comprising:
a fastening device (18, 21, 23) for a spray container (25) on an outside of a water closet bowl (11) having a seat (13);
a tube system (28-29) connectable to an actuating element (30) of the spray container (see Fig. 2-4), the tube system comprising:
a flexible tube (28) extendable into an interior (interior of 11) of the water closet bowl between the seat and a rim (12) of the water closet bowl (see Fig. 1-2); and
an ergonomically shaped grip element (29; see Fig. 2), the grip element comprising:
a central receiving opening (33) for the actuating element (see Fig. 2 and 4); and
a contact surface (top surface of 29) configured to extend outwardly from the actuating element (see Fig. 2; the top surface of 29 extends outwardly from 30) such that the spray container is operable when a pressing force is applied to the contact surfaces (col. 2, l. 65 - col. 3, l. 6) and a connector (31) for connection to the spray container, wherein
the flexible tube is, at a first end (near 34) thereof, connectable to the actuating element at a height (height of 29) of a dispensing opening (opening of 30) of the spray container (see Fig. 2) and, at a second end (near 17) thereof, comprises an outlet opening (opening of 28) and a positioning element (17, 27, 27’), and
the positioning element is fastened to the second end of the tube (at 27) and is positionable in the interior of the water closet bowl (see Fig. 2-3), and the positioning element contains a counterweight (20), on a bottom side thereof (see Fig. 2).
However, Leland ‘070 does not disclose contact surfaces configured to extend outwardly from the actuating element such that the spray container is operable when a pressing force is applied to the contact surfaces as claimed.
Bartlett discloses an aerosol spray actuator bar including contact surfaces (13-14) configured to extend outwardly (see Fig. 1-4) from the actuating element (11) such that the spray container (col. 3, ll. 4-16) is operable when a pressing force is applied to the contact surfaces (col. 3, ll. 6-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the grip element of Leland ‘070, to have contact surfaces configured to extend outwardly from the actuating element such that the spray container is operable when a pressing force is applied to the contact surfaces as claimed, as taught by Bartlett, in order to minimize stress and fatigue when spraying from the aerosol container (col. 1, ll. 33-36).
Regarding claim 4, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the grip element is in mirror symmetry relative to a center axis (best seen in Fig. 3-4; see also Bartlett, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the grip element comprises an opening (34) on a side facing the water closet bowl (see Fig. 2) and the flexible tube is guided through the opening (see Fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 44-49).
Regarding claim 6, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the positioning element is funnel shaped, teardrop-shaped, round, or oval (27 is shown as round or oval in Fig. 4) and is slidably connected to the tube (see Fig. 1-4; col. 2, ll. 31-49).
Regarding claim 8, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the positioning element is asymmetrical in shape (see Fig. 2) and the counterweight is arranged in the positioning element at a position (position of 20) offset from a center thereof (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the connector comprises a screw lock, a buckle lock, a magnet lock, or a clip lock (see Fig. 2 and 4; col. 2, ll. 44-47).
Regarding claim 11, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the spray container including the actuating element (see Fig. 2-4; col. 2, l. 31 - col. 3, l. 5) and the actuating element is a spray head (see Fig. 2-4; col. 2, l. 31 - col. 3, l. 5).
Regarding claim 12, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the spray container is a compressed gas container (col. 2, ll. 18-27) or a pump spray container.
Regarding claim 13, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the positioning element is plastic (col. 1, ll. 67-72; col. 2, ll. 18-27) or metal.
Regarding claim 15, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the grip element is a three-finger spray head (as modified by Bartlett above, col. 3, ll. 4-16; the actuator bar of Bartlett is capable of having only three fingers applied) allowing the user to dispense spray by applying only three fingers while in a seated position on the water closet bowl (as modified by Bartlett above, col. 3, ll. 4-16; the actuator bar of Bartlett is capable of having only three fingers applied).
Regarding claim 16, the combination above and specifically Leland ‘070 further discloses the fastening device is configured to hold the spray container in an upright position (upright position shown in Fig. 1-3).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland (US 3178070; hereinafter Leland ‘070) in view of Bartlett (US 6003739) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huitron (US 20200181898).
Regarding claim 3, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Leland ‘070 does not disclose wherein the flexible tube is a silicone tube or a plastic tube and the tube has an inner diameter between 0.5 mm and 10 mm as claimed.
Huitron discloses an automatic toilet bowl cleaning apparatus and methods wherein 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 conduit of Leland ‘070, 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).
Furthermore, Leland ‘070 does not explicitly disclose the tube has an inner diameter between 0.5 mm and 10 mm as claimed.
Bartlett discloses an aerosol spray actuator bar wherein the tube (25’) has an inner diameter between 0.5 mm and 10 mm (col. 4, ll. 15-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the tube of Leland ‘070, to have an inner diameter of 0.5mm and 10mm as claimed, as taught by Bartlett, since it was known in the art that a diameter of a fluid channel will depend on the viscosity of the fluid and the desired spray pattern (col. 4, ll. 15-29). Furthermore, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed diameter range of the inner diameter and the combination above would work appropriately.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland (US 3178070; hereinafter Leland ‘070) in view of Bartlett (US 6003739) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ewing (US 3316559).
Regarding claim 7, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Leland ‘070 does not disclose the counterweight is completely surrounded by the positioning element as claimed.
Ewing discloses a toilet hygienic device wherein the counterweight (45) is completely surrounded by the positioning element (16-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the counterweight of Leland ‘070, to be completely surrounded by the position element as claimed, as taught by Ewing, in order to further project a leg portion downwardly interiorly of the bowl equipped with a discharge nozzle device (col. 2, ll. 8-26).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland (US 3178070; hereinafter Leland ‘070) in view of Bartlett (US 6003739) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sternitzky (US 20220145606).
Regarding claim 10, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Leland ‘070 not disclose wherein the fastening device includes a first magnet and a second magnet, wherein the first magnet is fastened on or in the grip element, and the second magnet, which interacts with the first magnet, is fastened to the outside of the water closet bowl as claimed.
Sternitzky discloses a force actuated liquid dispenser wherein the fastening device includes a first magnet (¶ 0027) and a second magnet (¶ 0027), wherein the first magnet is fastened on or in the grip element (116, 118, 104), and the second magnet, which interacts with the first magnet (¶ 0027), is fastened to the outside of the water closet bowl (400). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the fastening device of Leland ‘070, 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).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leland (US 3178070; hereinafter Leland ‘070) in view of Bartlett (US 6003739) and Ewing (US 3316559) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Leland (US 3336603; hereinafter Leland ‘603).
Regarding claim 14, the combination above discloses substantially all of the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 7.
However, Leland ‘070 does not disclose the counterweight is a metal body as claimed.
Leland ‘603 discloses a toilet bowl deodorizer wherein the counterweight is a metal body (col. 2, ll. 43-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the counterweight of Leland ‘070, to be a metal body as claimed, as taught by Leland ‘603, since it was known in the art that a lead ring is a suitable weight to cause the conduit to bend downwardly into the toilet bowl (col. 2, ll. 43-47).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights