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 with traverse of Species A in each of Groups 1, 2, and 3 in the reply filed on 7/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because each embodiment in the listed groups require different search considerations, including text search strategies and classified searching. This is burdensome to the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant asserts that claims 1 – 16 read on the elected species. The examiner respectfully disagrees and finds that claims 3 – 5, 10, 12, 13 and 16 are directed to non-elected species and are WITHDRAWN from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1, 2, 6 - 9, 11, 14, and 15 remain for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, it appears that “s” in line 5 should be –is--.
In claim 15, “its” is informal and should be replaced with proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
device for supplying cleaning liquid in at least claim 1; and
back-suction safety device in at least claim 1;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Applicant’s use of “drinking water” is acknowledged and understood to refer to the household connection to the mains supply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6 - 9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
In line 6, “preferably” renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear if the limitations which follow are required or merely preferred. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
In line 7, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the bowl-shaped WC closet body portion.” The claim previously sets forth a body section and it is assumed that this is the structure to which applicant intends to refer.
Regarding claim 2, in line 2, “preferably” renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear if the limitations which follow are required or merely preferred. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the sensors” in line 3. “At least one sensor” does not provide proper antecedent basis for multiple sensors.
The remaining claims are indefinite insofar as they depend on rejected base claims.
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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111155608) in view of Hauth (US 11,761,187).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a WC device with a body and flushing water supply device for supplying flushing water to the body (fig. 1), wherein the flushing water supply device (tank 8) is provided with a water connection (at 6), the body having a bowl-shaped WC body section (1) and a subsequent odor trap (everything down stream of 10, when the valve 10 is closed, any odor remaining in the lines is prevented from being reintroduced to the bowl and is thus considered a trap), the body section has a porous inner surface (3) and is connected to a device for supplying cleaning liquid (4, 9, 13 collectively) for keeping clean and/or cleaning the porous inner surface, and wherein the device for supplying cleaning liquid is supplied with at least one back-suction safety device (13) which prevents back-suction of cleaning liquid from the porous inner surface to the water connection (see attached machine translation, p. 4, para. 6).
Wang does not specifically disclose that the water connection to the flushing water supply device is to drinking water. Attention is turned to Hauth which teaches a similar toilet having a cleaning device (20) and a flushing water supply device (6) with a connection to drinking water (10). It would have been obvious to have connected the tank of Wang to the water mains supply in order to provide a consistent supply of water to the toilet.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Hauth, as applied to claim 1, in view of Parikh (US 5,142,711).
Regarding claim 2, Wang shows all of the instant invention as discussed flushing water supply device has a cistern (tank 8) and a drain valve (12), and wherein the device for supplying cleaning liquid is connected to the cistern (see fig. 1, 4, 9, 13 are connected to cistern from drain valve 12), wherein water present in the cistern is used as cleaning liquid for keeping clean and/or cleaning the porous inner surface of the WC body section (see fig. 1), but is silent as to the particulars of a fill vale. Attention is turned to Parikh which teaches a similar device for suppling cleaning liquid in a toilet (fig. 2) including a cistern (18) having a filling valve (24) for filling the cistern with drinking water coming from a water connection (30), the filling valve having an outlet mouth (25), which, in the operating position of the filling valve, defines a free flow path relative to a water level present in the cistern (25 is open to cistern). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a float actuatable fill valve to ensure that the cistern is not overfilled.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Hauth, as applied to claim 1, in view of Dorra et al. (US 11,377,832 hereinafter Dorra).
Regarding claim 6, Wang as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show a pump. Attention is turned to Dorra which teaches a similar toilet cleaning device which uses a pump (306) to convey liquid (via 308) to a surface (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a pump in the device for supplying cleaning liquid of Wang as an alternative, functionally equivalent way of channeling cleaning liquid to the porous surface. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary in order to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP §2144.06.
Claim(s) 7- 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Hauth, as applied to claim 1, in view Hirata et al. (JP 2011006894 hereinafter Hirata).
Regarding claims 7 – 9, Wang as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further shows that the device for supplying cleaning liquid (12, 9) is provided with a controller (5), the controller triggering a supply of the cleaning liquid and being arranged on the WC body (see fig. 1, 5 is located on top of tank 8), but Wang does not show that the controller is in connection with a sensor that provides a sensor signal. Attention is turned to Hirata which teaches a similar toilet cleaning device having a motion sensor (machine translation, p. 4, last paragraph) which triggers the dispensing of a cleaning fluid responsive to the sensor detecting and providing a sensor signal indicative of a user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a sensor in the device of Wang in order to provide for automatic operation of the cleaning device for enhanced convenience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 14, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hauth (US 9,909,294) shows a backflow preventer of the type disclosed, but not explicitly claimed (see fig. 19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights