DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the front” on line 9 of claim 1 and on line 15 of claim 10 should be --a front--. Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are similarly objected due to their dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5,199,111 (hereinafter Antepenko).
Regarding claim 1, Antepenko discloses a device (see Figs. 1-2) for removing odors around a toilet as illustrated below. The added language “a portion of the conduit for removing odors extending from the one side of the housing longitudinally along a back edge of the engagement surface comprises an extendable inner conduit that extends within the conduit extending longitudinally along the engagement surface” is fully met by Antepenko (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the device of claim 1, wherein a length (see Figs. 1 and 2) of the device measured between opposing sides of the engagement surface is greater than a width (see Figs. 1 and 2) of the device measured between a front and back edge of the engagement surface.
Regarding claim 3, the device of claim 1, wherein the housing is sized and shaped to fit between the top portion of the toilet bowl and a toilet seat (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the device of claim 1, wherein the conduit for removing odors extends longitudinally to a point past a side of the engagement surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the device of claim 4, wherein the conduit for removing odors extends downwards from the point past the side of the engagement surface and then laterally toward a back of the toilet (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the device is made of a plastic material (see col. 3, lines 23-25: “hard plastic material”).
Regarding claim 10, Antepenko discloses a system (see Fig. 1) or removing odors around a toilet, the system comprising a toilet (10) comprising a toilet bowl (12); a toilet seat (24) positioned over the toilet bowl; and a device (see illustrated Fig. 2 above) for removing odors around a toilet. The added language “a portion of the conduit for removing odors extending from the one side of the housing longitudinally along a back edge of the engagement surface comprises an extendable inner conduit that extends within the conduit extending longitudinally along the engagement surface” is fully met by Antepenko (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the device of claim 10, wherein a length (see Figs. 1 and 2) of the device measured between opposing sides of the engagement surface is greater than a width (see Figs. 1 and 2) of the device measured between a front and back edge of the engagement surface.
Regarding claim 12, the device of claim 10, wherein the housing is sized and shaped to fit between the top portion of the toilet bowl and a toilet seat (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, the device of claim 10, wherein the conduit for removing odors extends longitudinally to a point past a side of the engagement surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the device of claim 13, wherein the conduit for removing odors extends downwards from the point past the side of the engagement surface and then laterally toward a back of the toilet (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the device of claim 10, wherein at least a portion of the device is made of a plastic material (see col. 3, lines 23-25: “hard plastic material”).
Regarding claim 19, the system of claim 10, further comprising a “motor” (conventional blower or electrical exhaust fan 72) attached to a second end of the conduit for removing odors via members 60, 62 at about 66 in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 20, Antepenko teaches a method of removing odors around a toilet with the system according to claim 10, the method comprising suctioning gas formed around the toilet through the device for removing odors (see abstract).
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) 7-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antepenko in view US 5,522,093 (hereinafter Schaffer).
Regarding claim 7, Antepenko teaches the device of claim 5 as discussed above except for the conduit comprises a trap release for removing fluids and/or solids from the conduit. Attention is directed to the Schaffer reference which teaches an analogous device further having a conduit (see Fig. 7: members 131, 27), similar configuration to Antepenko, that extends downwards from the point past the side of the engagement surface and then laterally toward a back of a toilet. The Schaffer differs from Antepenko in that the conduit of Schaffer further includes a trap release (container 145 in Fig. 7) for removing fluids and/or solids from the conduit (see col. 6, lines 15-20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ, in the conduit of Antepenko, a trap release as taught by Schaffer in order to remove fluids and/or solids from the conduit.
Regarding claim 8, the device of claim 7, Schaffer teaches the trap release is formed between the downward extending portion of the conduit and the laterally extending portion of the conduit (see Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 16, Antepenko teaches the device of claim 14 as discussed above except for the conduit comprises a trap release for removing fluids and/or solids from the conduit. Attention is directed to the Schaffer reference which teaches an analogous device further having a conduit (see Fig. 7: members 131, 27), similar configuration to Antepenko, that extends downwards from the point past the side of the engagement surface and then laterally toward a back of a toilet. The Schaffer differs from Antepenko in that the conduit of Schaffer further includes a trap release (container 145 in Fig. 7) for removing fluids and/or solids from the conduit (see col. 6, lines 15-20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ, in the conduit of Antepenko, a trap release as taught by Schaffer in order to remove fluids and/or solids from the conduit. Regarding claim 17, the device of claim 16, Schaffer teaches the trap release is formed between the downward extending portion of the conduit and the laterally extending portion of the conduit (see Figs. 7-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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.
/TUAN N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754