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 filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Beale (US 2011/0131717) and Marshall (US 6,687,922) are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant is reminded that a “ person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP 2141(II)(C)
In this case, Applicant has argued that both the base reference of Beale and the teaching reference of Marshall are nonanalogous to Applicant’s invention and that even if they were there would be no motivation to look to Marshall as a teaching or to incorporate its taught features to which the examiner disagrees.
Applicant has argued (Pg. 6) that Beale is nonanalogous as it does not explicitly disclose a siphonic trapway.
Applicant has asserted that Beale is in the field of ‘washdown toilets’ (Pg. 7) however Applicant does not cite where Beale states this, does not cite any details of its waste outlet passage/assembly and instead appears to base this on the presence of water outlets directing water into the bowl to wash waste towards a lower outlet. It is noted that the presence of rinsing and/or jetting outlets within a bowl do not inherently define the toilet as having a specific outlet assembly or operation and that Applicant’s own water closet pan comprises a ‘washdown’ water inlet (10). For at least theses reasons Applicant’s assertions regarding the type of outlet assembly/functionality is required by Beale is not persuasive.
Beale is a flush toilet for use in controlled facilities which provides anti-ligature features and a high flush rate (Abstract). This establishes that Beale is analogous art in regards to Applicant’s anti-ligature flush toilet as it is not only a flush toilet but is a flush toilet provided with anti-ligature features. Applicant’s arguments regarding the lack of depiction or discussion of a siphonic trap fails to address the teaching of Marshall and instead focuses on the base reference individually.
Regarding Marshall, the reference is directed to another flush toilet which, as another flush toilet, is analogous art for a teaching of a flush system for a flush toilet.
Regarding the lack of motivation to combine, it is noted that the base reference of Beale explicitly states the benefit of a high flush rate (Beale Abstract, Para. 0008) and is silent regarding the waste outlet passage/assembly outlet of the toilet as previously discussed. As such there is a motivation for an ordinary artisan to look to teachings of other flush toilets for a teaching of a waste outlet passage/assembly that will facilitate a rapid removal of waste thereby facilitating a high flush rate as Beale established is desirable.
Marshall was relied upon as a teaching of the known use of a P-trap in a flush toilet which is provided with a siphonic bypass to provide jetted water directly into a trapway. P-traps are old and well-known in the art of flush toilets which provide the known benefits of a rapid removal of waste while maintaining a water seal between flushes to block odors. Furthermore, the ‘blowout tube 20’ as taught by Marshall is a siphonic bypass because of its construction, installation and function. The blowout tube, as a siphonic bypass, directly connects a water inlet passage to a point upstream/on the upward leg of the siphon point of the P-trap (leg over/upper edge) and functions by directly injecting flush water into the P-trap to help initiate and/or enhance the siphon action (forcefully driving and/or entraining waste and polluted water from the toilet into the waste outlet and through the siphon).
As such Marshall is a teaching of a flush toilet waste outlet passage/assembly utilizing a siphonic bypass – such a waste outlet assembly/passage thereby also being a siphonic outlet or per the teaching of Marshall in particular a P-trap which utilizes siphonic action and therefore can benefit from/utilize the siphonic bypass.
In summary, as the base reference of Beale establishes a flush toilet with a high flush rate and no details of its waste outlet passage/assembly there is motivation to look to other flush toilets for outlet passages/assemblies which can provide a high flush rate. Marshall is analogous art as it is a flush toilet. Marshall teaches it is known in the art to utilize a waste outlet assembly/passage which includes a siphonic bypass, such a siphonic bypass by its design being required to be attached between a flush water inlet passage (source of water to be jetted/bypass the toilet bowl) and the upstream end/upward extending leg of a siphonic outlet. As such the resultant combination is the toilet of Marshall, which was disclosed with a water inlet passage but without details of a waste outlet passage/assembly, being provided with the taught siphonic bypass connecting its water inlet passage with a siphonic outlet on its waste outlet passage.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., any specific structures or features of a ‘A siphonic water closet pan’) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant has claimed “A siphonic water closet pan” in the preamble of the claims but has not defined any specific siphon structure. Applicant has claimed an outlet passage and a siphonic bypass connected to said passage but no further details/limitations regarding any unique/specific structure Applicant may believe ‘a siphonic water closet pan’ imparts or Applicant intends to impart.
Applicant has argued that Beale is not analogous and there would be no motivation to modify its outlet assembly/passage as, per Applicant (Pg. 7):
The claimed invention addresses the problem of ensuring efficient siphonic flushing action in an anti-ligature and vandal-resistant water closet while avoiding an institutional appearance. In contrast, Beale addresses the problem of maintaining a high flushing rate in an anti-ligature washdown lavatory pan. Beale is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it is solely concerned with the physical shape of direct water delivery outlets (e.g., downward curves and tapered necks) to prevent ligature attachment, and says nothing related to siphonic flushing.
This argument is not persuasive. Both Beale and Applicant’s invention are flush toilets constructed with the intention of providing anti-ligature features to facilitate the toilet’s use in correctional and other controlled facilities as Applicant has acknowledged.
Part of Beale’s teachings are directed to how to form water supply passages for rinse water to the bowl in a manner which prevents the formation of ligature points (Beale Para. 0051). This does not teach away from Applicant’s invention and does not prohibit modifications to Beale’s own outlet passage/assembly but instead further reinforces that Beale is relevant as it is focusing on preventing the formation of ligature points while forming rinse water supply passages to the bowl. Furthermore, as indicated by Applicant, Beale establishes that a high flush rate is desirable for anti-ligature toilets and the facilities which typically use them (Beale Abstract, Para. 0008).
Applicant’s disclosure (Publication Para. 0004, 0006, 008) states that the purpose of the invention is to provide an anti-ligature toilet, which is addressed by Beale, that it not have an ‘institutional appearance’ which isn’t relevant to the siphonic bypass but is addressed by Beale forming its bowl as a monolithic block of resin, and that an efficient flushing action is important. As such Applicant’s arguments and original disclosure has not established that they have improved an existing siphonic outlet assembly by introducing a siphonic bypass or, as Applicant argues, “ensuring efficient siphonic flushing action” within an existing siphonic flush anti-ligature toilet by adding a siphonic bypass. Instead Applicant identified the desirability of efficient flush actions and used an outlet assembly utilizing a siphonic bypass on a siphon to provide this efficient flush action.
For at least the reasons above Applicant’s arguments in Section A are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicants arguments in section B:
Applicant has argued (Pg. 7-8) that Beale is a washdown toilet using a ‘washdown’ flush mechanism due to the presence of water inlets in the bowl region and what they allege is “a rear waste outlet at or above the level of the bowl”.
As discussed in detail above, this is an allegation by Applicant which is not supported by Beale’s disclosure or Applicant’s disclosure. Beale does not detail its waste outlet passage/system/drainage function. Beale disclosing water inlets in the bowl does not inherently require the bowl be a ‘washdown flush’ style bowl as evidenced by Applicant’s inclusion of a water inlet (10) in the bowl and the common use of rinse rings in flush bowls utilizing P-traps and other siphons. The figure of Beale cited by Applicant does not show the internals of the toilet or including the waste passageway and Beale does not disclose details of the wase passageway other than that the bowl has an outlet (18) and the toilet has a waste pipe (12) for connecting to a sewage system.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about the functionality of Marshall’s flush action “is achieved by gravity using a siphon” (Arguments Pg. 8) it is noted that Marshall includes a rinse ring (26) which directs water under pressure into the bowl from a top of the bowl downward to wash the waste and polluted water into the waste outlet. As such Applicant’s argument that Marshall’s flush functions fundamentally differently than Beale because Beale uses water supplied to the bowl to drive out waste is not persuasive.
For at least these reasons, and those discussed in detail above regarding the analogousness of the art and the motivation to combine the art, Applicant arguments
In response to applicant's argument that Beale would require substantial redesign and reconstruction, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, in this particular case Beale does not disclose its waste outlet passage and/or system but does disclose how to form a new passage in the bowl structure as it discloses a mold construction and molding process.
For at least the reasons above Applicant’s arguments in Section B are not persuasive
Regarding Applicant’s arguments Section C:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant is reminded that a “ person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP 2141(II)(C)
In response to applicant's argument that Beale would require substantial redesign and reconstruction, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, as discussed in detail above and in the original Office Action Beale does not disclose details of its waste outlet system/passage and instead only discloses that a high flush rate is desirable. As such Applicant’s arguments that it would defeat the functionality of Beale or require a ‘redesign’ are not persuasive.
As Beale has no explicit and/or detailed waste outlet passage/system established an ordinary artisan would look towards other flush toilets for teachings of outlet passages/systems. Applicant’s argument that a non-existent system is being modified is not persuasive because Marshall is being looked to for a teaching of a waste outlet passage/system for flush efficiency as Beale fails to disclose any details of one.
P-traps are well known in the art of flush toilets and as taught by Marshall the provision of a P-trap as an outlet passage for a flush toilet with a siphonic bypass coupled between a water inlet passage and the siphonic outlet is known in the art.
For at least these reasons, and those described above in detail, Applicant’s arguments in Section C are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in Section D:
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art of record does not disclose a water closet pan with the claimed features formed in a monolithic block of resin, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Beale discloses that its water closet pan is formed through a molding process and details how rinse water supply conduits are coupled to and/or formed in the mold structure and molded into a single monolithic structure of resin (Beale Para. 0028-0037, 0052-0054; Fig. 4 – bowl and conduits structures are placed in mold which forms resinous structure around them forming all parts in a single monolithic block of resin; Resin – Para. 0026, 0046, 0051-0052).
While Beale doesn’t disclose details of its waste outlet or the inclusion of a siphonic bypass Marshall teaches this feature as previously discussed.
The resultant combination would have an ordinary artisan incorporate the new features/details into the mold construction as evidenced by Beale’s disclose of incorporating the rinse water supply conduits.
As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has introduced new claim 23 which requires the provision of:
a water reservoir configured to store water between flushing operations, wherein the water reservoir is disposed between and in fluid communication with both the refill passage and the water inlet passage
As written this language appears to require a volume of water be supplied to the water reservoir and to remain stored there from the completion of one flush cycle until whenever the next occurs. However, there does not appear to be any basis in Applicant’s original disclosure for the water reservoir to retain a volume of water after one flush and until the next occurs.
Applicant’s disclosure states that the water reservoir (24) is configured to allow water to be “stored and the run into the bowl after the water closet pan has been flushed” (Publication Para. 0058) and that during a flush and refill process “the water reservoir 24 fills from the source of water and then slowly delivers a proportion of the water, after the flush, to refill the pan” (Publication Para. 0060). These statements and similar (Para. 0061, 0064) indicate that the water in the water reservoir steadily, if slowly, drains out of the reservoir after a flush as part of the refill process.
Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed. See MPEP 2163(II)(A).
For the purpose of examination and compact prosecution, any ‘water reservoir’ between a refill passage and water inlet passage which retains water at least temporarily after the waste removing portion of a flush process and at least into a refill process will be interpreted as ‘storing water between flushing operations’ as the water will be present after one flush and prior to a subsequent flush.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, 18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0131717 (Beale) in view of US 6,687,922 (Marshall).
Regarding claim 1, Beale discloses a water closet pan comprising:
a bowl (6) having a smooth convex rim (4);
a water inlet passage (Passage delivering water to inlets: 20 delivering to inlets 8 and not depicted passage to inlets 9 and 10 annotated in the figure below) connected to a water inlet (10) and configured to direct water into the bowl for flushing;
PNG
media_image1.png
288
415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a refill passage (Opening/connection for water supply pipe and conduit connecting to water inlet passage; Not depicted but required for a supply connection) in fluid connection with the water inlet passage and configured to allow water to refill the bowl after flushing; and
an outlet passage (passage between 18 and 12) connected to an outlet (18) and configured to allow removal of waste.
Beale, however, does not disclose if a siphonic bypass is provided connecting the outlet passage with the water inlet passage as Beale does not disclose any details of the outlet passage and/or system and instead only discloses that water is supplied to the bowl to wash water through the waste outlet in the bowl.
Marshall teaches a siphonic water closet pan (10) comprising an enclosed base (14) and a bowl (11) with a rim (12) which also serves as a seat. To supply water to the bowl a water inlet passage (18) is connected to a water inlet (26) and configured to direct water into the bowl for flushing and a refill passage (16) in fluid connection (17) with the water inlet passage and configured to allow water to refill the bowl after flushing. Marshall further teaches providing an outlet passage (13) in the form of a P-trap (13) which utilizes a siphon action for removing waste for the bowl which is provided with a siphonic bypass (20) which connects the outlet passage and the water inlet passage so as to deliver water into the outlet passage during a flush to assist in removing waste.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a siphonic bypass, which is a bypass pipe/blowout pipe which connects a water inlet to a siphonic outlet such as a P-trap and as such a siphonic outlet such as a P-trap as well as it is part of the bypass system, connecting the outlet passage with the water inlet passage, as taught by Marshall, to increase the ability and/or efficiency of the toilet by assisting in the creation and operation of a siphoning action, which is old and well known in the art to efficiently remove waste from a toilet, by forcefully blowing waste/water through/along the siphon/outlet path.
For the purpose of clarity, as Beale does not establish any details of its outlet passage and/or system, the teaching of a ‘siphonic bypass’ by Marshall necessitates the provision of a siphonic outlet as part of the waste passageway for the siphonic bypass to couple to and perform its function.
Regarding claim 2, Beale in view of Marshall teaches a water closet pan comprising a siphonic bypass as previously discussed. Beale further states that the toilet pan is formed such that the fluid passages are entirely or partially enclosed within the pan wall (Para. 0021) but doesn’t explicitly require they be entirely enclosed.
Marshall further teaches entirely enclosing the water inlet passage, refill passage, siphonic bypass and outlet passage within a material of the water closet pan (Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to entirely enclose the conduits of the toilet pan including the siphonic bypass, as taught by Marshall, so as to protect the components/conduits from environmental, accidental and/or intentional damage.
Regarding claim 3, Beale in view of Marshall teaches a water closet pan with a siphonic bypass as previously discussed.
Marshall further teaches that the siphonic bypass comprises a separate siphonic bypass pipe (20) incorporated into the water closet pan which is connects to the water inlet passage (24 connects to 18/19) and to the water outlet passage (23 connects to 21/13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a separate siphonic bypass pipe into the water closet pan for the siphonic bypass, as taught by Marshall, to ensure proper formation of the siphonic bypass during fabrication and/or to facilitate replacing the siphonic bypass pipe for repair/replacement if needed.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Marshall states that the siphonic bypass pipe is bonded to the water inlet passage and the water outlet passage (C3 L43-46 – bypass pipe is welded to the water inlet passage and outlet passage).
Regarding claims 4 and 5 in the alternate, it is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
In this case Beale in view of Marshall establishes creating a secure fluid connection between the water inlet passage and the outlet passage.
Regarding claim 7, Beale states that the water inlet (10) is located at and configured to direct flushing water into a rear of the pan (Fig. 1C; Para. 0046 – Outlets located at rear of pan and dispensing onto the rear of the pan).
Regarding claims 8-9, Beale states that a barrier is provided between the water inlet and the water inlet passage (Para. 0049 – Intended to prevent ligatures, barrier is separating multiple outlets so is upstream of the inlets and blocking part of the water inlet passage from each inlet) and that it is fixed in position (Para. 0049 – cast in place).
Regarding claim 10, Beale states that the barrier is bonded in position (Para. 0049 – the barrier is bonded to the inlet passage by being cast in position).
Regarding claim 10 in the alternate, it is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
In this case, the bonding of the barrier in position achieves the fixing of the barrier in position which is already achieved by Beale as previously discussed in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Beale states that the water inlet is located in an upper portion of the bowl (Fig. 1, 3; Para. 0019).
Regarding claim 12, Beale states that the water inlet passage is entirely or partially enclosed within a material of the water closet pan (Figs. 3A, 4; Paras. 0052-0053).
Regarding claim 13, Beale states that the outlet (18) is located in a base portion of the bowl (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Beale states that the outlet passage is entirely or partially enclosed within a material of the water closet pan (Para. 0052-0053 – Pan is molded with conduits/passages formed in the casting; Figs. 1A, 3A).
Regarding claim 15, Beale states that the refill passage is connectable to a source of water for flushing (Para. 0038).
Regarding claim 16, Beale states that the outlet passage is for removing waste from the pan and is a pipe (Fig. 1) and as such would be connectable to a waste pipe.
Regarding claim 18, Beale states that the pan is adapted for use without a separate seat (Para. 0025).
Regarding claim 21, Beale states that the bowl, water inlet passage and other water and waste conduits are formed in a same monolithic block of resin (Para. 0028-0037, 0052-0054; Fig. 4 – bowl and conduits structures are placed in mold which forms resinous structure around them forming all parts in a single monolithic block of resin in so much as Applicant’s invention is; Resin – Para. 0026, 0046, 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 22, Beale states that the resin comprises a polyester (Para. 0026).
Claims 6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale in view of Marshall as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of US 11,021,861 (Muellenbach).
Regarding claim 6, Beale does not state that the pan includes a water reservoir in fluid communication with the refill passage.
Muellenbach teaches a water closet (100) comprising a refill passage (108/110) for receiving water from a water source for refilling the toilet and a water inlet passage (322) connected to water inlets (326). Muellenbach further teaches that the provision of a water reservoir (300) in fluid connection with the refill passage for collecting water for use with refilling the toilet (C4 L50-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a water reservoir in fluid connection with the refill passage, as taught by Muellenbach, so as to ensure that upon completion of a flush cycle sufficient water is supplied to the toilet to ensure a water seal is formed.
Regarding claim 23, Beale in view of Marshall teaches forming a water closet pan with its rinse water supply and waste removal conduits/passages in a monolithic block of resin as previously discussed. Beale does not state that the pan includes a water reservoir disposed between and in fluid communication with both the refill passage and the water inlet passage.
Muellenbach teaches a water closet (100) comprising a refill passage (108/110) for receiving water from a water source for refilling the toilet and a water inlet passage (322) connected to water inlets (326). Muellenbach further teaches the provision of a water reservoir (300) disposed between and in fluid connection with the refill passage and the water inlet passage for collecting water which is retained in the water reservoir after a flush is completed for use with refilling the toilet prior to the next flush, as such storing water therein between flushes (C4 L50-67; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a water reservoir disposed between and in fluid connection with the refill passage and the water inlet passage which is configured to retain water therein between flushes, as taught by Muellenbach, so as to ensure that upon completion of a flush cycle sufficient water is supplied to the toilet to ensure a water seal is formed.
Regarding the limitation that the water reservoir be formed of the same monolithic block of resin, as previously discussed Beale in view of Marshall teaches forming a closet pan and its associated passages in a monolithic block of resin. As such the combination of Beale in view of Marshall and Muellenbach would result in the water reservoir being included as part of the water supply conduits and incorporated into the monolithic block as well.
Claim 16 is rejected in the alternate under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beale in view of Marshall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3,576,038 (Dirks).
Regarding claim 16, Beale states that the outlet passage is for removing waste from the pan and is a pipe (Fig. 1) however it doesn’t explicitly state the inclusion of or connection to a waste pipe.
Dirks teaches a water closet for use in correctional facilities or other locations requiring anti-tampering features. The water closet comprises a pan (B) with an outlet (24) opening to an outlet passage (31), which can take different forms (Figs. 2, 4) including a siphonic outlet (Fig. 4) and which is connectable through threads (33a) to a waste pipe (D/F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the outlet passage to be connectable to a waste pipe, as taught by Dirks, so as to facilitate connecting the pan to a sewage system, tank or other waste removing system to discharge the flushed water and waste during use of the toilet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 1,928,717 (Campus) teaches a flush toilet comprising a P-trap outlet and a siphonic bypass pipe coupled thereto.
US 2,703,409 (Manning) teaches a flush toilet comprising a siphonic bypass integrally formed into the monolithic body of the water closet pan.
US 4,195,374 (Morris) teaches a flush toilet for use in correctional and other controlled facilities comprising a bowl, a water inlet passage, a waste outlet passage and a blowout pipe which connects the water inlet passage and the waste outlet passage to generate a siphon action in the waste passage to facilitate efficient flushing of the waste.
US 5,067,181 (Hafner) teaches a flush toilet comprising a bowl, a waste outlet and a bypass pipe connecting a water inlet passage and the outlet passage.
US 10,352,028 (Boeltl) teaches a flush toilet for correctional facilities comprising a bowl and a waste outlet with a bypass pipe connecting a water inlet passage with the waste outlet passage.
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 NICHOLAS A ROS whose telephone number is (571)270-3577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-6:00.
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.
/NICHOLAS A ROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights