DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to application number 18/422,737 - PLUMBING FIXTURES WITH INSERT-MOLDED COMPONENTS, filed on 1/25/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 “cavity in the flush engine formed during molding” and at least one electronic component within the cavity…, of 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, is missing “the” between “within” and “cavity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 15 and 16 refer to “the electronic component” rather than “the at least one electronic component. While it is understood that the electronic component is referring to the at least one electronic component previously introduced, the claims should be consistent throughout.
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 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, “the at least one electronic component is installed in the tank cover” is indefinite as “the at least one electronic component” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 1 introduces “an at least one electronic component...” in the flush engine that includes the trap, the bowl and the sump and does not include the tank or the tank cover. The at least one electronic component introduced in claim 1 cannot be in both the flush engine and the tank or tank cover as it is specified that it is in the flush engine. Introduction of a second of the at least one electronic component is required.
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, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US 7,353,577) in view of Cortes-Garza (US 4,209,862) in view of Schindler et al. (US Pub. 2004/0032749).
Regarding claims 1
Davies shows a toilet assembly (Fig. 3) comprising: a flush engine (24) including a bowl (24b), a sump (bottom of bowl; seen in Fig. 3), and a trapway (shown in Fig. 3; below bowl); but fails to show a cavity in the flush engine formed during molding; and at least one electronic component within cavity configured to sense or indicate an operation associated with the flush engine.
However, Cortes-Garza shows using a functional insert (10, 21) for creating a cavity during molding (note, col. 2, lines 7-19). Turning to, Schindler shows a plumbing fixture comprising: an electrical component (LED light) insert-molded within a portion of the plumbing fixture (¶ [0049, 0055)], the portion formed from an epoxy (¶ [0049] acrylic resin; hermetically sealed); wherein the electrical component (720, 810; Fig. 11& 12) is offset from and disposed below an outer surface of the plumbing fixture. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include providing a cavity in the flush engine formed during molding for the purpose of including LED light that is insert molded within a portion of the plumbing fixture for the purpose of the electrical component being protected from the water in a toilet environment as shown by Cortes-Garza and Schindler.
Regarding Claim 3 Davies as combined shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, further comprising: an epoxy body between the at least one electronic component and a surface of the toilet assembly (Schindler; ¶ [0049] acrylic resin; hermetically sealed).
Regarding Claim 4 Davies shows the toilet assembly of claim 3, but fails to show wherein the epoxy body is translucent. However, Schindler shows wherein the epoxy is a semi-translucent material configured to pass light therethrough (whole document; operate as night light). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include translucent epoxy for the purpose of passing light through as shown by Schindler.
Regarding Claim 6 Davies shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein the at least one electronic component includes a sensor. However, Schindler shows an electronic component as a sensor (48). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include the electronic component as a sensor as sensors are well-known for actuation as shown by Schindler.
Regarding Claim 11 Davies shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein the at least one electronic component includes a plurality of sensors and a plurality of lights. However, Schindler shows the at least one electronic component includes a plurality of sensors (48, light sensor 552 temperature sensor) and a plurality of lights (624, 658). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include a plurality of lights and sensors for the purpose of sensing light and temperature and providing enough light to operate a night light as shown by Schindler
Regarding Claim 18 Davies shows a method of forming a toilet assembly, the method comprising: casting a flush engine from vitreous material (abstract; note, col. 1, lines 5-20). But Davies fails to show installing a functional insert on the flush engine; placing the flush engine in a mold; and inserting a material in the mold to create a cavity with the functional insert, wherein the cavity includes at least one electronic component configured to sense or indicate an operation associated with the flush engine.
However, Cortes-Garza shows installing a functional insert (10, 21) on a sanitary ware for creating a cavity during molding (note, col. 2, lines 7-19) placing the sanitary ware in a mold (Figs. 1-3) and inserting material in the mold to create a cavity with the functional insert (Figs. 1-3; note, col. 2, lines 7-19) . Turning to, Schindler shows a plumbing fixture comprising: an electrical component (LED light) insert-molded within a portion of the plumbing fixture (¶ [0049, 0055)]) the component configured to sensor or indicate an operation (sensor senses low light and operates the night light). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include providing a cavity in the flush engine formed during molding for the purpose of including LED light that is insert molded within a portion of the plumbing fixture for the purpose of the electrical component being protected from the water in a toilet environment as shown by Cortes-Garza and Schindler.
Regarding Claim 19 Davies shows the method of claim 18, further comprising: but fails to show connecting the at least one electric component to a controller. However, Schindler shows connecting the at least one electric component to a controller (550). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include connecting the at least one electric component to a controller fore automatic responses as shown by Schindler.
Regarding Claim 20 Davies shows the method of claim 18, but fails to show connecting the at least one electric component to a power source. However, Schindler shows electrically connecting to a power source (abstract). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include a power source connected to the at least one electric component as electric components need electricity to function as is well-known and shown by Schindler.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US 7,353,577) in view of Cortes-Garza (US 4,209,862) in view of Schindler et al. (US Pub. 2004/0032749) in further view of Garasi et al. (US 4,086,318).
Regarding Claim 2 Davies shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein the flush engine includes at least one inner surface that is glazed for the bowl, the sump, or the trapway, and at least one unglazed surface for the electronic component. However, Garasi teaches a toilet made from ceramics having a flush engine (17) which comprises an inner surface (13) and an outer surface (12). The inner surface and all of the functional elements of the functional unit are glazed (col. 4, In. 1-4) while the external surface is unfinished (col. 3, In. 63). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies and to glaze the internal, functional surfaces so as to prevent the accumulation of waste and bacteria and to leave the external surfaces unglazed so epoxy and the electronic component can adhere flush engine.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US 7,353,577) in view of Cortes-Garza (US 4,209,862) in view of Schindler et al. (US Pub. 2004/0032749) in further view of Bucher et al. (US Pub. 2017/0030065).
Regarding Claim 5 Davies shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a tank (note, col. 7, lines 33-39) configured to provide water to the flush engine; but fails to show and a tank cover configured to cover the tank, wherein the at least one electronic component is installed in the tank cover. However, Bucher shows a tank cover (99; Fig. 3A) having at least one electronic component installed in the tank cover (Fig. 3A). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include a toilet tank, tank cover and the at least one electronic component in the toilet tank cover for the purpose of housing the component where user access may be achieved as shown by Bucher.
Regarding Claim 9 Davies shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show further comprising: a motor coupled to a flush valve, wherein the at least one electronic component includes a sensor configured to actuate a flush by sending an instruction to the motor. However, Bucher shows a motor coupled to a flush valve (¶ [0432]) and shows wherein a controller may receive a signal from a sensor for actuation of the motor (¶ [0432-0433; 0473; actuates a clean cycle which includes a flush (abstract)]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include a motor coupled to a flush valve and a sensor configured to actuate a flush by sending and instruction to the motor for the purpose of an automated flushing/clean cycle as shown by Bucher.
Regarding Claim 12 Davies as combined shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one electronic component includes at least one light, but fails to show the light is indicative of a cleaning cycle. However, Bucher shows using a light for indicating actuation of a cleaning cycle (¶ [0472]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies as combined to include a light for indicating actuation of a cleaning cycle for the purpose of notifying the user the toilet is in process as shown by Bucher.
Regarding Claim 17 Davies shows a toilet assembly (Fig. 3) comprising: a flush engine (24) including a bowl (24b), a sump (bottom of bowl; seen in Fig. 3), and a trapway (shown in Fig. 3; below bowl); but fails to show a functional insert configured to form a cavity in the flush engine during molding; and at least one electronic component within cavity configured component adjacent to the translucent body and within the functional insert or the cavity to sense or indicate an operation associated with the flush engine.
However, Cortes-Garza shows using a functional insert (10, 21) for creating a cavity during molding (note, col. 2, lines 7-19). Turning to, Schindler shows a plumbing fixture comprising: an electrical component (LED light) insert-molded within a portion of the plumbing fixture (¶ [0049, 0055)], the portion formed from an epoxy (¶ [0049] acrylic resin; hermetically sealed); wherein the electrical component (720, 810; Fig. 11& 12) is adjacent to the cavity epoxy resin (Fig. 9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include providing a cavity in the flush engine formed during molding for the purpose of including LED light that is insert molded within a portion of the plumbing fixture for the purpose of the electrical component being protected from the water in a toilet environment as shown by Cortes-Garza and Schindler.
Davies fails to show wherein the epoxy body is translucent. However, Schindler shows wherein the epoxy is a semi-translucent material configured to pass light therethrough (whole document; operate as night light). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include translucent epoxy for the purpose of passing light through as shown by Schindler.
Davies fails to show wherein the at least one electronic component includes a sensor to sense an input for an operation associated with the flush engine and an indicator configured to indicate the operation associated with the flush engine.
However, Schindler shows an electronic component as a sensor (48). Turning to Bucher. Bucher shows using a light for indicating actuation of a cleaning cycle (¶ [0472]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies to include the electronic component as a sensor as sensors are well-known for actuation as shown by Schindler and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies as combined to include a light for indicating actuation of a cleaning cycle for the purpose of notifying the user the toilet is in process as shown by Bucher.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US 7,353,577) in view of Cortes-Garza (US 4,209,862) in view of Schindler et al. (US Pub. 2004/0032749) in further view of Kovarik et al. (US Pub. 2011/0144453).
Regarding Claim 7 Davies as combined shows the toilet assembly of claim 6, but fails to show wherein the sensor is a capacitive sensor, a microwave sensor, or an electromagnetic sensor. However, Kovarik shows using a microwave sensor for detecting a user and for control of a toilet (¶ [0041; 0089]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies as combined to include a microwave sensor for detecting proximity from great distance and through walls as shown by Kovarik.
Regarding Claim 8 Davies as combined shows the toilet assembly of claim 6, but fails to show wherein the sensor is configured to detect an object in proximity to the toilet assembly. However, Kovarik shows using a microwave sensor for detecting a user and for control of a toilet (¶ [0041; 0089]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies as combined to include a microwave sensor for detecting proximity from great distance and through walls as shown by Kovarik.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US 7,353,577) in view of Cortes-Garza (US 4,209,862) in view of Schindler et al. (US Pub. 2004/0032749) in further view of Kappus et al. (US Pub. 2021/0115652).
Regarding Claim 10 Davies as combined shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein the at least one electronic component includes a first electrical component for a first flush sequence and a second electrical component for a second flush sequence. However, Kappus shows a flush valve for a toilet with at least one electronic component (controller and buttons; ¶ [0033; 0048; 0066]) that includes a first electrical component for a first flush sequence (¶ [0033, 0043] partial flush) and a second electrical component for a second flush sequence (¶ [0033, 0043] full flush).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US 7,353,577) in view of Cortes-Garza (US 4,209,862) in view of Schindler et al. (US Pub. 2004/0032749) in further view of Yagin et al. (US Pub. 2013/0205487).
Regarding Claim 13 Davies as combined shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein the at least one electronic component includes a lid sensor configured to detect a position of a lid for the bowl. However, Yagi shows using a sensor to detecting an opening and closing of the toilet bow lid (¶ [0070]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies as combined to include the at least one electronic component includes a sensor to determine the position of the lid for the bowl for the purpose of determining if the toilet is in use as shown by Yagi.
Regarding Claim 14 Davies as combined shows the toilet assembly of claim 13, wherein the lid sensor includes a magnet or a magnetic sensor (Yagi ¶ [0070]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US 7,353,577) in view of Cortes-Garza (US 4,209,862) in view of Schindler et al. (US Pub. 2004/0032749) in view of Yagin et al. (US Pub. 2013/0205487) in further view of Bucher et al. (US Pub. 2017/0030065).
Regarding Claim 15 Davies as combined shows the toilet assembly of claim 13, but fails to show wherein the electronic component includes a light that is illuminated with the lid is raised. . However, Bucher shows using a light for indicating actuation (¶ [0472]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies as combined to include a light for indicating actuation of the lid is raised for the purpose of notifying the user the toilet is ready to use as shown by Bucher.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al. (US 7,353,577) in view of Cortes-Garza (US 4,209,862) in view of Schindler et al. (US Pub. 2004/0032749) in further view of Saito et al. (US Pub. 2016/0273204).
Regarding Claim 16 Davies as combined shows the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein the electronic component includes a heater. However, Saito shows a toilet with a seat and a built in toilet seat heater (¶ [0016]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davies as combined to include the electronic component included a heater for the seat for the purpose of providing comfort for a user as shown by Saito.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,047,122. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar in scope.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 15 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,118, 338. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar in scope.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, 15, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,603,650. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar in scope.
Claims 1-4 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 11-15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,913,207. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar in scope.
Claims 1-4 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 10-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,152,381. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar in scope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stokely et al. (US 9,596,961) shows the general state of the art of manufacturing a sanitary article; Bernabei et al. (US 9,290,922) shows the general state of the art of manufacturing a toilet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5163. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM EST.
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 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.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 3/10/2026