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 Amendment
The response filed on January 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4 are cancelled, claims 5-8 are ne claims. Eighteen pages of specification (9 pages of marked-up and 9 pages of clean version) were received on January 12, 2026. The specification is acceptable to correct the obvious scrivener’s errors in the original disclosure.
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 appendix, called "tail of the shower-head" comprising a tapered part which continues horizontally under the tray, rises vertically by tightening the edge of the tray, and is fixed, by a reversible mechanical connection as recited in claim 5 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 § 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.
Claims 5-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Line 1 of claim 5 recites “Toilet utensil consisting of a flexible spray nozzle which comprises…” The preamble and transitional phases rendering the claim indefinite. The transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. MPEP 2111.03. The claim is indefinite because it recites that the toilet utensil consisting of (closed-ended) a flexible spray nozzle (Only) and then further recites the toilet utensil comprises (open-ended) other elements. Furthermore, it is unclear if the “comprises” refers to the “toilet utensil” or the “spray nozzle?” Clarification is respectfully requested. For the purpose of examination, line 1 is being interpreted as “a toilet utensil having a flexible spray nozzle, the toilet utensil comprises…”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the part" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the edge" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the inlet pipe" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an appendix, called "tail of the shower-head" comprising a tapered part which continues horizontally under the tray, rises vertically by tightening the edge of the tray, and is fixed, by a reversible mechanical connection to the inlet pipe of the shower-head, said "tail of the shower-head" thus forming a closed loop around the tray" in lines 6-9. It appears to be idiomatically and/or grammatically incorrect. It is unclear what element or combination of elements “is fixed, by a reversible mechanical connection to the inlet pipe of the shower-head?” Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ring" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the tail of the shower-head,” in line 4 without quotation marks. The limitation in line 6 of claim 5 is with quotation marks. It is unclear if the two limitations are the same or different limitations? Why one is with quotation marks, the later one is without? Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the loops" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the buttonholes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claim 8.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the height of the liquid exit holes" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claim 8.
Claims 5-8 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
The above are just examples of inconsistencies and problematic issues noted by the Examiner. Applicant is advised to carefully review and amend the application to correct other deficiencies. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ratin (FR3080758).
With respect to claim 5, Ratin discloses a toilet utensil (Figs. 1-3) consisting of a flexible spray nozzle (Fig. 3) which comprises:- a tray (13) provided with three buttonholes (14, 15),- two shower-heads (1),- three rings (of 8. Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the part (Fig. 3) of the shower-heads which is provided with exit holes (of 1. Fig. 3) is extended by an appendix (neck of 1), called "tail of the shower-head" comprising a tapered part (left end of 13 in Fig. 3) which continues horizontally under (on the left side of) the tray, rises vertically (at 2) by tightening (wrapping) the edge of the tray, and is fixed, by a reversible mechanical connection (3, 8, 9, 10) to the inlet pipe of the shower-head, said "tail of the shower- head" thus forming a closed loop (Figs 1 and 2) around the tray.
With respect to claim 6, Ratin discloses wherein the toilet utensil comprises a digital (of or relating to the fingers or toes. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/digital) belt part (3, 8, 9, 10) of which passes under the tray by carrying out successively:" a loop (right loop 9 in Fig. 1) under the ring of the ring finger (a),- a loop (right hoop 3 in Fig. 1) above the tail of the shower-head on the right,- a loop (middle loop 9 in Fig. 1)under the ring of middle finger (m),- a loop (left hoop 3 in Fig. 1) above the tail of the left shower-head," finally, a loop (left loop 9 in Fig. 1) under the ring of index finger (I), the loops under the rings being reserved for the user's fingers.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratin.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Ratin discloses wherein the three rings of the toilet utensil are provided with rods (7, 8. Fig. 2) which are inserted from bottom to top into the buttonholes of the tray, and on which the user can insert, under the tray, adjustment seals (by tightening the ribbon 10 and band 9) with which the user can adjust the height of the liquid exit holes of the shower-heads with respect to a plan that would be rubbed by the user's fingers.
Ratin fails to disclose wherein the rods are threaded rods.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use threaded rods for adjustment because this device is well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the threaded rods for adjustment because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the threaded rods for adjustment because such a change is a mere alternative and functionally equivalent adjustable connection. And because such a change would only produce an expected result, i.e, adjustable connection. The use of alternative and functionally equivalent adjustable connection would have been desirable to those of ordinary skill in the art based on the economics and availability of components.
Response to Arguments
All pending claim are new claims. Applicant provided no arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections.
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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 29, 2026