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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims page 3, line 1, “20. 75 (Cancelled)” should read –20-75 (Cancelled)--;
Claims page 3, line 15, “107.” is unclear;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, “aa base” should read – a base--.
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, 11, 15-16, 17, 82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,543,339 B1 to Harris in view of WO 2020/092224 Al to Shine Bathroom Tech, Inc.
Re. claims 1 and 82, Harris discloses a modular bidet 59 comprising a cabinet assembly 65; a pumping unit 83 and a bidet mixing valve 94 comprising an outer shell, the pumping unit 83 engaging a cartridge 78, and the bidet mixing valve 94 configured to control an amount of liquid flow from the cartridge 78; and a tractable bidet sprayer 58 (see column 13, line 11- column 15, line 15 and figures 4-24). Harris fails to explicitly recite a mixing tank comprising a tank column assembly positioned within an outer shell, mixing core which engages the tank column assembly, and a lower tank assembly with a mixing needle; however, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, Shine teaches (see paragraphs [0052]-[0057] and figures 6,8D-1B) a pod 17, or mixing tank, installable and removable in a reservoir 19, when the pod 17 is pushed into a pod port 18, a foil is pierced by a pierce point 29, and other components 20 may be interfaced to a controller such as control valves. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris as taught by Shine such that the motivation for having a tank column assembly positioned within an outer shell, where the mixing core engages the tank column assembly, and a lower tank assembly with a mixing needle would have been to provide solutions for controlling the liquid flow in order to balance the solution.
HARRIS:
PNG
media_image1.png
616
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 11, Harris modified by Shine further discloses a mixing core inner shell defines a mixing core chamber operable to receive a mixing pod 17 (see para 0008 and figures 11a/b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris as taught by Shine such that the motivation for having a mixing core chamber would have been to provide solutions for controlling the liquid flow in order to balance the solution.
Re. claim 15, Harris further discloses the base 64,65 further comprises a base housing having a length and a width, wherein the width decreases from a first end to a second end along the width (see figures 4-8).
Re. claim 16, Harris further discloses the base 64,65 is configured to receive the retractable fluid applicator wand 58 within a recess on a front surface of the base.
Re. claim 17, Harris further discloses the base 64,65 has a reel assembly 60 operable to wrap a fluid carrying tube engaging the retractable fluid applicator wand at a first end and the base at a second end around a pulley assembly (see figure 9).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris and Shine as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of JP 06-003454U Obayashi CORP.
Re. claims 2-3 and 76, Harris modified by Shine fails to explicitly disclose the retractable fluid applicator wand body with an elongated central housing aperture with a wand actuator at a first end of the elongated central housing aperture, and a pair of adjacent fluid delivery apertures; however, in an analogous prior art in the same field of endeavor, Obayashi teaches retractable fluid applicator wand 1 has a fluid applicator wand body with an elongated central housing aperture with a wand actuator 13 at a first end of the elongated central housing aperture, and a pair of adjacent fluid delivery apertures 11 shape selected from round, oval, ovoid, square, rectangular, and triangular (see claim 1, figures 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris in view of Shine as taught by Obayashi such that the wand body has adjacent fluid delivery outlets. The motivation for having a retractable fluid applicator wand body and fluid delivery apertures would have been to provide an adjustable bidet to a user in addition to multiple outlets for dispensing fluids.
PNG
media_image2.png
554
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Harris and Shine as applied to claim 1 above in view of US 7,913,329 B2 Smith.
Re. claims 4-5, Harris modified by Shine fails to explicitly disclose a piston valve having a lower piston housing chamber with an opening sized to receive an upper piston valve housing, and a piston valve ball positioned between a lower piston housing and an upper piston ball housing; however, in an analogous prior art in the same field of endeavor, Smith teaches a piston valve 18 further comprises a lower piston housing chamber 13a with an opening sized to receive an upper piston valve housing, and a piston (see column 6, lines 37-64 and figure 5) valve ball 31 positioned between a lower piston housing and an upper piston ball housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris in view of Shine as taught by Smith such that a lower piston housing chamber is adjusted to receive an upper piston valve housing. The motivation for housing the upper piston valve in the lower chamber would have been to prevent liquid flow therethrough.
PNG
media_image3.png
440
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Harris and Shine as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of EP 3486210 Al to Riprup Co.
Re. claim 12, Harris modified by Shine fails to explicitly disclose a push- push mechanism; however, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, Riprup Co. teaches a push-push mechanism 12 (see para 0049 and figures 7-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris in view of Shine as taught by Smith because the substitution of one known lock mechanism for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The motivation for a push-push mechanism would have been to securely open/close a device successively.
PNG
media_image4.png
562
354
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Harris and Shine as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 7,690,392 B1 to Sarkiss.
Re. claim 13, Harris modified by Shine fails to explicitly disclose an autofill hook that snaps into an autofill hook grappling notch; however, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, Sarkiss teaches an autofill hook 29a, 29 that snaps into an autofill hook grappling notch 2’ (see para 0036; figure 5 below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris in view of Shine as taught by Sarkiss such that an autofill hook fits into notch. The motivation for using an autofill hook would have been to engage the lever securely.
Re. claim 14, Harris further discloses a vent hole 109 (see figure 17) in cartridge 77.
PNG
media_image5.png
558
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 110 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
WO 2020/092224 Al to SHINE.
Re. claim 110, Shine discloses a pod 17-19, 30-31 comprising an encapsulation sheath 19 having a flattened spherical shape (see figure below) and additive solution (see page 11, para 0058-0059); however, Shine fails to explicitly recite a concentrated solution comprising lactic acid, mandelic acid, sodium diacetate, potassium sorbate, and polysorbate wherein the concentrated solution achieves a pH balance after a dilution of from 1:500 to 1:700 dilution in water and a pH between 3.8 and 5.5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a concentrated solution comprising lactic acid, mandelic acid, sodium diacetate, potassium sorbate, and polysorbate wherein the concentrated solution achieves a pH balance after a dilution of from 1:500 to 1:700 dilution in water and a pH between 3.8 and 5.5, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the concentrated solution comprise lactic acid, mandelic acid, sodium diacetate, potassium sorbate, and polysorbate and the concentrated solution achieve a pH balance after a dilution of from 1:500 to 1:700 dilution in water and a pH between 3.8 and 5.5, this particular agreement is deemed to be known by those skilled in the art since the instant application and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. The Applicant should note that where a change in size or range of a prior art reference merely represents a change of degree, and not a change of kind, such change is a design consideration within the skill of the art; further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image6.png
386
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 12,156,618 B2 Chen et al is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a bidet and intelligent toilet. Claims 6-10 and 18-19 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.
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 CST. 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-my.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
Patents Application Assistance Center
Toll-Free:
1-888-786-0101
Local:
1-571-272-4000
Email: HelpAAU@uspto.gov
Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) Customer Service Center
Toll-Free:
866-217-9197
Local:
571-272-4100
ebc@uspto.gov
PAIR https://ppair.uspto.gov/epatent/portal/home
For ordering issues or general questions please contact:
Customer service phone line
Hours: 8:30 am – 5 pm ET, Monday – Friday (except federal holidays)
Toll free: 1-800-972-6382 | Local number: 571-272-3150
For sign in and USPTO.gov account issues contact:
USPTO.gov account customer service
Hours: 8:30 am – 8 pm ET, Monday – Friday (except federal holidays)
Toll free: 1-800-786-9199 | Local number: 571-272-1000
TTY: 1-800-877-8339
Inventor and Entrepreneur Resources
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-entrepreneurs-resources
Inventors Assistance Center (IAC)
The Inventors Assistance Center (IAC) provides patent information and services to the public. The IAC is staffed by former Supervisory Patent Examiners, experienced Primary Patent Examiners, various intellectual property specialists and attorneys who can answer general questions concerning patent examining policy and procedure.
The IAC is available Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 8PM EDT, except for federal holidays or when the USPTO is otherwise closed.
Contact the IAC
Toll Free: 800-786-9199
Local: 571-272-1000
TTY: 800-877-8339
The MPEP can be accessed at the following web address: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html
Information about the Pro Se Assistance Program, which can aid inventors who file patent applications without the assistance of a registered attorney or agent, is available at the following web address:
hftps://www.uspto.gov/patents
COMMUNICATIONS VIA THE INTERNET AND AUTHORIZATION
Communications via Internet e-mail is at the discretion of the applicant.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application.
The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
"The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with me via the Internet is hereby withdrawn. I understand that the withdrawal is effective when approved rather than when received."