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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 3, 8, the subjective expression, "to be" is unclear as to whether the claimed element to which it relates is optional. For clarity, the Examiner suggests deleting the expression, “to be”;
In claim 1, line 6, the phrase “arc-like” is unclear as to whether the claimed apparatus includes elements encompassed by the term, “-like”. For clarity, the Examiner suggests wording, --arc-shaped--.
Since claims 2, 4-7 and 9-12 are in the chain of dependency to claim 1, they too are subjected to the same objection.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2001 311201 A to TOTO, LTD.
Re. claim 1, TOTO discloses a sanitary washing device 10 casing 22, 24a (see fig. 1); and a nozzle unit 24,40 configured to advance and retreat (see dotted lines in fig. 8) between the casing 22, 24a and a toilet 12, 18, 20 the nozzle unit being curved to be upwardly convex (see fig. 8), and being configured to advance and retreat along an arc-like trajectory (fig. 8), the nozzle unit including nozzle head 25 having a first flow channel 34 (fig. 20) through which water flows (para 30; Espacenet and Patent translate), and a second flow channel 35 (fig. 20) connected to the first flow channel 34, a water flow direction 32 of the second flow channel 35 in a longitudinal direction of the nozzle unit being different from a water flow direction 31 of the first flow channel 34 in the longitudinal direction (see para 0052, lines 10-16; fig. 20 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
258
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
242
264
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 2, TOTO further discloses the first flow channel 34 and the second flow channel 35 each extend in linear (i.e., along a straight or nearly straight line) shapes (see fig. 20).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOTO as applied to claim 1 above.
Re. claim 5, TOTO does not disclose that the angle between the first flow channel, with respect to the horizontal is less than an angle between the second flow channel, with respect to the horizontal. TOTO is silent regarding the value of the angle between the first flow channel and the second flow channel, with respect to the horizontal axis. Instead, TOTO discloses the nozzle 140 having passages 143 to 145 that communicate with head passages 34 to 36 and discharge holes 31 to 33, where compressed air is forcibly directed into the water flowing through each passage 34 to 36, whereas the water flow rate is adjusted by an air flow control valve 150 and flow path switching by a switch valve 150a in order for the water flow and discharge to be stabilized. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of TOTO by causing the angle between the first flow channel with respect to the horizontal to be less than the angle between the second flow channel with respect to the horizontal because Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on any particular angle (see Specification pages 4-5 where the angle is required simply to guarantee the durability and compactness of the nozzle and to maintain stability of the water discharge) and it appears that the device of TOTO would work appropriately if made within the claimed angle between the first flow channel with respect to the horizontal is less than an angle between the second flow channel with respect to the horizontal.
PNG
media_image4.png
266
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6-12 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, KR 102823197 B1 to Quoss Co. LTD is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a bidet nozzle unit 140 for a toilet capable of sterilizing 200 while preventing splashing of droplets when flushing; a first outlet (181) for guiding the cleaning water to the bidet and a second outlet (182) for guiding the cleaning water to the sterilizing cartridge and a cleaning water-conversion valve (180) and first and second cleaning water channels (141) (143) each having a bidet nozzle (142) (144) and sterilizing water channel (145), thereby preventing the droplets generated when flushing the toilet from flying out of the toilet , thereby sterilizing the toilet.
PNG
media_image5.png
368
346
media_image5.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