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 .
Amendment received on December 30, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are pending.
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) 1-4, 6, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gebert (CH 375861A, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Gebert teaches a fastening device for a seat fitting or lid fitting on a sanitary object (1), comprising a threaded rod (9) which has an external threaded portion (10) and an internal threaded bore (14) and which engages through a through-hole (2) in the sanitary object in the mounted position (as shown in Fig), a first (11) and a second abutment element (13) which in the mounted position receive a portion of the sanitary object between one another and are braced thereagainst (as shown in Fig), at least one nut (12) to be screwed onto the external threaded portion for bracing the abutment elements and the threaded rod (as shown in Fig), and a retaining pin (4 & 17) which receives the seat fitting or lid fitting and which has an external threaded portion to be screwed into the internal threaded bore (as shown in Fig).
Gebert further teaches in claim 2 wherein the threaded rod has a support portion (vertical portion of 11 in contact with 1) by which it can be clamped against the second abutment element when the nut is screwed on, or in that the second abutment element is configured in one piece with the threaded rod;
in claim 3 wherein the first abutment element or the first and the second abutment element in each case is a disk or plate (as shown in Fig the first abutment is a plate);
in claim 4 wherein the first and/or the second abutment element is captively retained on the threaded rod (as shown in Fig second abutment 13 is captively retained via nut 12);
in claim 6 wherein the support portion is a shoulder provided on the end of the threaded rod, the threaded rod bearing thereby against the second abutment element (as shown in Fig);
in claim 16 a sanitary object (1) and a seat fitting or lid fitting (3) which is fastened or can be fastened to the sanitary object by means of two fastening devices (Machine Translation, Pg 1, ¶4);
in claim 17 wherein two preferably round through-holes, which are fully covered in the mounted position by the second abutment element or by the cover, are provided on the sanitary object (Machine Translation, Pg 1, ¶4);
in claim 18 wherein the sanitary object is a WC or bidet (Machine Translation, Pg 1, ¶1); and
in claim 19 wherein the seat fitting or lid fitting has only one seat, only one lid or a seat-lid combination (Machine Translation, Pg 1, ¶1).
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert, in view of Lu (GB 2 309 040A).
Regarding claim 5, Gebert is silent wherein the first abutment element has an elongated slot through which the threaded rod engages, so that the abutment element can be tilted toward the threaded rod.
Attention is directed to Lu that teaches wherein the first abutment element (28) has an elongated slot (282) through which the threaded rod engages, so that the abutment element can be tilted toward the threaded rod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a first abutment element that has an elongated slot through which the threaded rod engages, so that the abutment element can be tilted toward the threaded rod, in view of Lu's teaching. Elongated slots allow more flexibility and ease when fastening components together.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert.
Regarding claims 7 & 8, Gebert fails to teach wherein the second abutment element has a recess for countersunk reception of the shoulder and wherein the shoulder is conical and the recess is a conical countersink.
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to add a conical shaped countersunk recess at the shoulder as a matter or design choice, since it was known in the art that countersunks to create a seamless or flat connection is old and well known and widely practiced in all industries. Applicant also has not disclosed that conical shaped countersunk recess achieves any unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Gebert to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claims 7 & 8 because such a modification would have been a mere design consideration. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert, in view of Diethelm (EP 3 797 661A, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 9-10, Gebert is silent wherein a receiver is provided on the threaded rod for positioning a tool, and wherein the receiver is a slot which is provided on the front face of the threaded rod or a polygonal recess extending into the internal threaded bore.
Attention is directed to Diethelm that teaches in claim 9 wherein a receiver (22, Fig 7-13) is provided on the threaded rod (2) for positioning a tool; and in claim 10 wherein the receiver is a slot which is provided on the front face of the threaded rod or a polygonal recess extending into the internal threaded bore (as shown in Fig 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a receiver which is a slot provided on the front face of the threaded rod, in view of Diethelm's teaching. Using a receiver allows the user to use tools to facilitate installation or removal of the fastening devices.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert, in view of Chen (WO 2016/070707A1, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 11, Gebert is silent wherein the second abutment element has a bearing portion made of plastics material,
Attention is directed to Chen that teaches in claim 11 wherein the second abutment element (33) has a bearing portion (34) which is made of a plastics material and which bears against the sanitary object (Machine Translation of element 34), or in that the second abutment element is supported against the sanitary object via a bearing disk made of a plastics material;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bearing portion for the second abutment element that is made out of plastic material, in view of Chen's teaching. The use of bearing portion made out of plastics material is commonly done to provide additional grip for metal fasteners
Claim(s) 12-15, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert, in view of Stammel et al (US 11,896,172), hereinafter Stammel.
Regarding claims 12-15, 20-21, Gebert is silent wherein the retaining pin has a receiver for positioning a tool; wherein the receiver is a slot provided on the front face of the retaining pin or a polygonal pin section; wherein a cover is provided placed on the second abutment element; and two rotational dampers with connecting portions.
Attention is directed to Stammel that teaches in claim 12 wherein the retaining pin (19) has a receiver (17) for positioning a tool (Col 8, Ln 25-36); in claim 13 wherein the receiver is a polygonal pin section (18); in claim 14 wherein the retaining pin has one or more clamping or latching elements (20) for a clamped or latching retention of the seat fitting; in claim 15 wherein a cover (23) is provided, the cover being placed on the second abutment element (9) and covering this second abutment element in the mounted position, and the retaining pin engaging therethrough (as shown in Fig 6, the cover partially cover the second abutment element); in claim 20 wherein two rotational dampers (2), which in each case have a connecting portion (3) with a retaining pin receiver (6) into which the respective retaining pin engages, are fastened to the seat fitting or lid fitting (as shown in Fig 6); and in claim 21 (as best understood) wherein the respective cylindrical connecting portions (3) are received in a receiver (24) of the cover of compatible shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a receiver with polygonal pin section on the retaining pin for positioning a tool, to use clamping/latching elements on the retaining pin, to use a cover to cover second abutment element; and two rotational dampers with connection portions; in view of Stammel's teaching. Receivers with polygonal pin allow the use of tools during installation thus facilitates the user, and rotational dampers increase the durability of the fastening devices by decreasing stress placed on the threaded bolts from use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Gebert does not teach the limitations as recited in the claims, especially claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that in claim 1, there is no additional structure concerning a retaining pin besides an “external threaded portion” in line 8. There is no limitation requiring the retaining pin to be a single piece or prohibiting the retaining pin from comprising more than 1 element. The disclosure does not specifically define a retaining pin either. Therefore, retaining pin is broadly interpreted using dictionary definition and anything that does the job of “retaining” qualifies. While applicant insists that claim 1 as submitted is unambiguous, it is still quite broad and does not differentiate nor distinguish from cited prior art of Gebert. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected. Further amendment of claim 1 is recommended.
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 JENNIFER C CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 AM- 6 PM 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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/JENNIFER C CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754