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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse between Group 1 and Group III in the reply filed on 06/15/26 is acknowledged. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Group II in the reply filed on 06/15/26 is acknowledged. Applicant argues that the traversal is on the ground(s) that “under MPEP § 806.05(c), a combination and subcombination invention are distinct only if it can be shown that: (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) the subcombination has separate utility by itself or in other combinations. In the instant case, neither of these criteria is met. First, Group I and Group II are not distinct subcombination and combination because the combination requires the particulars of the subcombination for patentability. Here, independent claim 54 (Group II) is the combination claim, reciting a spray pipe and a seat, and independent claim 41 (Group I) is the subcombination claim, solely reciting the same seat as recited by claim 54. Therefore, the specific characteristics required by the subcombination claim 41 are also required by the combination claim 54. Where a combination as claimed requires the details of a subcombination as separately claimed, there is usually no evidence that combination is patentable without the details of subcombination." See MPEP, §806.05(c). Second, the subcombination does not have separate utility. Here, the subcombination claim 41 recites a seat comprising "a mounting cavity configured to house a spray pipe," and the combination claim 54 recites "a spray pipe." Therefore, the seat of claim 41 has no practical utility apart from use with the spray pipe as recited in claim 54. Third, searching the inventions of Group I and Group II together would not place a serious burden on the examination process. Claim 54 recites the exact same structural limitations as claim 41, with the sole exception that claim 54 adds the limitation of "a spray pipe." However, claim 41 already recites a mounting cavity configured to house such a spray pipe. Furthermore, the dependent claims share an identical structural relationship: claim 56 recites the same limitations as claim 43, and claim 57 recites the same limitations as claim 45. Accordingly, a prior art search directed to the elected invention of Group I will inherently encompass the subject matter and prior art space of Group II, presenting no serious burden to the Office. Applicant respectfully traverses the restriction between Group I and Group II and respectfully requests that the restriction requirement be withdrawn.” This is found persuasive and the requirement between Group I and Group II is therefore withdrawn. Newly submitted claims 61-64 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 62-64 are method or process claims for manufacturing a device. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 62-64 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
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 pipe bundle (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 41-53 and 61 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 41, “cover (connected” should read -- cover connected--. Appropriate correction is required. Since claims 42-53 and 61 are in the chain of dependency to claim 41, they too are subjected to the same objection.
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) 41-44, 54, 56, 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102460120 B1 to 박종현 et al.
Regarding claim 41 and 54, 박종현 et al discloses seat 140, a seat hole (fig. 1); a lower body cover 142; and an upper body cover 141 connected to the lower body cover; and a mounting cavity 160 configured to house a spray pipe 110, 220 comprising a cavity opening 172 directed toward the seat hole. 박종현 et al is silent as to a pipe bundle and in particular a “cover cap”. Instead, A박종현 et al indicates a seat (fig 1), comprising a seat body 140 comprising a seat hole (see figs. 1-5,7-9,16,24); a lower body cover 142; and an upper body cover 141 connected (fig. 2) to the lower body cover 142 (fig. 9); a cover assembly 160,170,200, 210 connected to the lower body cover (fig. 2-3) and disposed at a side end (fig. 2-3) of the lower body cover, the cover 170 comprising a through hole 172 (fig. 17) configured to allow to a pipe 220 to pass through; and a mounting cavity 160 configured to house a spray pipe 220 and formed by the cover 170 and the lower body cover, the mounting cavity comprising a cavity opening directed toward the seat hole (fig. 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the assembly of 박종현 et al with a cover cap wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose that which protects the spray pipe from contamination from excess liquids or damage from weight impact from a user. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06.
PNG
media_image1.png
454
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 42, the ‘120 reference does not disclose the through hole is a conical hole configured to be sealed with the pipe bundle, and wherein a radius of the conical hole decreases along a passing direction of the pipe bundle. Instead. ‘120 indicates the hole having a cylindrical shape from a front end to a rear end for allowing the nozzle passage (Description, English translation). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design a conical shape for the hole because Applicant has not disclosed that the conical shape of the hole provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the ‘120 device, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the cylindrical shape taught by ‘120 or the claimed conical shape because both shapes would perform the same function of allowing passage of a pipe. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify ‘120 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 42 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claims 43 and 56, ‘120 further discloses a cavity 160 bottom cover plate disposed 170,174 on a bottom and detachably connected to the lower body cover (fig. 7). ’120 does not discloses a cover cap. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the assembly of 박종현 et al with a cover cap wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose that which protects the spray pipe from contamination from excess liquids or damage from weight impact from a user. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 44, ‘120 further discloses the cavity bottom cover plate comprises a receding recess in a position corresponding to a position of the cavity opening (proximate reference numerals 170,172; fig. 8).
Regarding claim 61, ‘120 further discloses within the cavity opening 172 a nozzle of the spray pipe 110,220 is in an extended state or a retracted state. ‘120 does not disclose the cavity opening cover configured to close the cavity opening and pivotably installed in the mounting cavity, or open the cover when the nozzle is in a retracted state. Instead, ‘120 cavity provides protection to the nozzle fully retracted and a cover 280 to support the nozzle 220. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a cover for the cavity opening wherein doing so would merely be protecting the interior of the cavity of debris infiltration or other contamination to the cavity. See MPEP 2144.06.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45-53, 57 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 20240084778 A to Cho is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of toilet 100 seat 300 and cover part 400 installed as a bidet.
PNG
media_image2.png
216
288
media_image2.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 Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. 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 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.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights