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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 520.
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 starting position (claim 7), water supply line (para 0029; claims 10, 16), input and guiding water (claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “140” has been used to designate both supply conduit (para 0032) and supply hose (para 0036).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "21" (Spec para 0023) and "110" (Spec para 0032) have both been used to designate base. For clarity, the Examiner suggests alternative wording, --pedestal toilet base 21—and –bidet assembly base 110--;
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In line 1, “Provided is” should be deleted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 11, the recitation, “a plurality of cords configured to move the wand when the user control interface is moved” is unclear as to how the cords move when the interface moves. Clarification is requested;
in claim 17, the preamble, “the method comprising: “should read – the method comprising the steps of: --; Correction is required;
in claim 17, the recitation, “guiding water dispensed from an outlet of the wand in response to the input for controlling a position of the wand” is unclear as to what mechanism is actually performing this guiding function. Additionally, the Examiner questions the nature of the actual “step” being recited (i.e., guiding water where?). Clarification is required;
In claim 19, “is one an ultraviolet light, a fan, and a heater” is unclear as to whether the component is selected from one in the group. For clarity, the Examiner suggest wording, -- is one of an ultraviolet light, a fan, or a heater--;
Since claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are in the chain of dependency to claims 1, 11 and 17, they too are subjected to the same objection. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent 10,407,888 to Hall in view of U.S. Patent 8,261,377 B2 to Oh.
Re. claim 1, As best understood by the Examiner, Hall et al discloses a bidet assembly comprising a base 130 configured to be coupled to a toilet 100; a wand 140 extending from the base; a controller coupled to the toilet (figure 3A); and a plurality of cords (col. 4., lines 55-65) configured to move the wand when the user control interface is moved (col. 6, lines 17-39). Hall does not disclose a user control interface coupled to the base. Instead, Hall indicates controller 330 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium that has instructions that can follow an algorithm based on measurements from seat scales 120 or instructions for calculating a user’s center of mass, instructions classifying different parts of a user’s anatomy, or instructions that direct the bidet wand to modulate the force of the spray toward a user’s body part. However, Oh teaches a user control interface coupled to the base (figures below). Oh teaches a main body 10 mounted on the toilet bowl having control knobs 12-14 on control interface part C and user control interface S (figure 22). Therefore, in consideration of Hall modified by Oh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a user control interface in view of Oh because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The motivation for adding a user control interface coupled to the toilet would have been to allow the user easy access to manipulate the functions of the bidet to specific user requirements.
HALL:
PNG
media_image1.png
295
373
media_image1.png
Greyscale
OH:
PNG
media_image2.png
412
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 11, As best understood by the Examiner, Hall ’888 discloses a pedestal (see figure below) including a bowl 310; and a bidet assembly comprising a base 130 coupled to the pedestal; a wand 140 extending from the base 130 into the bowl (figure 3A); a controller coupled to the toilet (figure 3A); and a plurality of cords (col. 4., lines 55-65) configured to move the wand when the user control interface is moved (col. 6, lines 17-39). Hall does not disclose a user control interface coupled to the base. Instead, Hall indicates controller 330 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium that has instructions that can follow an algorithm based on measurements from seat scales 120 or instructions for calculating a user’s center of mass, instructions classifying different parts of a user’s anatomy, or instructions that direct the bidet wand to modulate the force of the spray toward a user’s body part. However, Oh teaches a user control interface coupled to the base (figures below). Oh teaches a main body 10 mounted on the toilet bowl having control knobs 12-14 on control interface part C and user control interface S (figure 22). Therefore, in consideration of Hall modified by Oh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a user control interface in view of Oh because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The motivation for adding a user control interface coupled to the toilet would have been to allow the user easy access to manipulate the functions of the bidet to specific user requirements.
HALL:
PNG
media_image3.png
432
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U S Patent 9,930,232 B2 to Peng.
Re. claim 17, As best understood by the Examiner, Peng discloses operating a device with water from a toilet for supplying fluid to a capture bidet wand 30 for cleansing based from receiving an input 40 that controls the movement 20 of the wand whereby a fluid travels from the wand in response to the input 40. Peng is silent as to reciting a method comprising the steps of receiving water and guiding dispensed water. Instead, Peng indicates that a supply of water from a toilet (see figure below) is capable of supplying water at a capture device, or “bidet wand” 30-31; receiving an input 40 (col. 3, lines 10-14, 41-44) for controlling a position system 20-22, 31, 33 which controls the position and movement of the wand (col. 3, lines 10-14); and allowing fluid dispensed from the wand, in response to the input, for controlling a position of the wand (col. 4 , lines 28-33). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a method for utilizing an input to trigger controlling the position of the wand as water flows thru the bidet because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
PNG
media_image4.png
594
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
536
546
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. More specifically, US Patent 12,123,185 B2 to Fang is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a bidet (figure below) having a spray pipe 2 mounted in a cavity 15, nozzle 22 and blocking door 3 pivotally mounted to block opening 14 where the nozzle is in a storage state inside pipe body 21 and extension state out of the pipe body.
PNG
media_image6.png
314
380
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm. Upon filing an amendment, please notify the Examiner to ensure timely processing for review. Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-y.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754