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 the reply filed on 4/29/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims demonstrate unity of invention because of the incorporation of claim 3 into claim 1 introduces “special technical features” that make a contribution over the prior art. However, claim 1 is still rejected under 102(a)(1) and thus lacks unity. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
It is noted that claims 6-8, directed to unelected species C have been cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9 - 20 remain for examination.
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: driving element in at least claim 1 and driving part in at least claim 2.
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.
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, 4 - 5, and 9 - 20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “collinear” in claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 appears to be used by the claim to mean “coincident,” while the accepted meaning is “points lying in the same straight line.” In other words, points may be collinear, but lines cannot. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding claim 2, applicant recites that the driving element and the sewage discharge inlet are located on “two sides of the sewage discharge pipe that are not opposite to each other.” In turning to the drawings, the discharge inlet is indicated at 11 and the driving element is indicated at 31. They are disclosed as being on opposed sides of the sewage discharge pipe 2. Accordingly, it is not clear how two opposed structures are “not opposite to each other” as required by the claim. The claim is indefinite since it is misdescriptive and inaccurate.
The remaining claims are indefinite insofar as they depend on rejected base claims. In light of the above cited defects, the claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 11 - 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN107859131 hereinafter Li), of record in IDS from 8/27/25.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a sewage discharge box assembly of a toilet (fig. 18), comprising a sewage discharge box (3), a sewage discharge pipe (5) and a driving apparatus (6), wherein the sewage discharge box has a sewage discharge inlet (see annotated fig. below) and a sewage discharge outlet (4), the sewage discharge pipe is provided in the sewage discharge box (see fig. 18), and an inlet end of the sewage discharge pipe is connected with the sewage discharge inlet (at 3011, see annotated figure below); the driving apparatus comprises a driving element (61) and a transmission mechanism (631, 632), the driving element is connected to the sewage discharge pipe through the transmission mechanism and is configured to drive the sewage discharge pipe to rotate so as to switch between an initial state and a sewage discharge state (see transition between fig. 18 and 19), and an axis of an output shaft (62) of the driving element is not ‘collinear’ with a rotation axis of the sewage discharge pipe (see annotated fig. below); wherein a first side of the sewage discharge box is provided with the sewage discharge inlet, a second side of the sewage discharge box adjacent to the first side is provided with a protruding sewage discharge outlet (see portion of 4 that protrudes downwardly from supporting wall), the driving element is provided outside the sewage discharge box and located on the second side of the sewage discharge box (fig. 18), and the axis of the output shaft of the driving element is parallel to the rotation axis of the sewage discharge pipe (see annotate fig. below)
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the sewage discharge pipe is provided with a driving part (501) that is in transmission cooperation with the transmission mechanism, the driving part is provided opposite to the sewage discharge inlet (see fig. 18, 501 is opposed from the inlet end), and the driving element (61) and the sewage discharge inlet are respectively located on two sides of the sewage discharge pipe ‘that are not opposite to each other’, see that the inlet and portions the driving element are below the rotation axis of the discharge pipe and therefore at up and downstream ends of the pipe that are not ‘opposite’.
Regarding claim 4, Li shows that the driving element (61) is located on a side of the outlet which is away from the inlet (see fig. 19, 61 is located apart from 4 and opposed from the inlet).
Regarding claim 11, 17, and 18, Li shows that the sewage discharge pipe (5) is arc-shaped (elbow) and the inlet end of the sewage discharge pipe is sleeved with sewage discharge inlet (see fig 18, 502 is brought into engagement with 3011 and rotatably sealed in place at 9), and the rotation axis of the discharge pipe is ‘collinear’ with a central axis of the sewage discharge inlet. See annotated figure below.
Regarding claims 12, 19, and 20, Li shows that in the sewage discharge state, an outlet end of the sewage discharge pipe faces the sewage discharge outlet (see fig. 19); in the initial state, the outlet end of the sewage discharge pipe faces away from the sewage discharge outlet and is in a water seal state (see fig. 18, the open end of the discharge pipe is higher than the lowest point of bowl at 2 to create a water seal)(see also para. [0079] in the machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses a toilet, comprising a toilet body (1), wherein the toilet body has a sewage discharge port (see annotated figure below), and the toilet further comprises the sewage discharge box assembly of the toilet according to claim 1, wherein the sewage discharge port is communicated with the sewage discharge inlet of the sewage discharge box assembly. See fig. 18.
Regarding claim 14, Li also shows that wherein in the initial state, an outlet end of the sewage discharge pipe is configured to be not lower than a water seal liquid level in the toilet body (para. [0079]). Note if that the open end of the sewage discharge pipe was lower than a water level in the toilet body, there would be no seal formed.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
989
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, as applied to claim 2, in view of Blake et al. (US 8,555,428 hereinafter Blake).
Regarding claim 5, Li shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides that the transmission mechanism includes a driving wheel (631) connected to the driving element (61) and a driven wheel (632), but does not show that the driving wheel and driven wheel are connected with a belt, instead showing that they are meshed directly. Attention is turned to Blake which teaches a similar valved toilet having a driving element (48) to which a driving wheel is connected (50), a driven wheel (52), and a transmission belt (54) sleeved outside of the driving and driven wheels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a belt to connect the driving and driven wheels of Li, depending on the size of the discharge box, motor power, etc. Either arrangement still enables the transmission of rotary motion to the pipe to cause flushing of the toilet. 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) 9 - 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, as applied to claim 2, in view of Minamiyama et al. (US 6,195,810, hereinafter Minamiyama).
Regarding claims 9 - 10 and 16, Li shows a mounting cavity is provided in the sewage discharge box (see fig. 21, open space of 3), the driving part (501), the driving part further having a groove (see opening of driving part in fig. 20), and which is rotatably (see progression in fig. 18-19) installed in the mounting cavity, but does not show the particulars of a rotary connector between the driving part and the transmission part (631, 632), although there must be some connection between the transmission and the driving part, otherwise the device would not function. Attention is turned to which teaches a similar rotary discharge toilet having a driving part (52) with a groove (52e)(as per claim 10) and a rotary connector (35) with a rib (see ribs in fig. 18)(as per claim 10), the groove and rib cooperating to synchronize motion between the driving part, rotary connector, and the transmission (60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time to have provided a connector which is able to synchronize movement between the driving part and the transmission part in the device of Li so that the pipe can rotate to discharge waste as intended. The choice to use mating grooves and ribs is a design consideration well within the purview of the ordinary artisan. As noted above, if there is no intervening connector, Li is non-functional. Under the proposed modification, the rotary connector will also be installed in the mounting cavity, since the transmission part is. See fig. 19.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Blake, as applied to claim 5, in view Minamiyama.
Regarding claim 15, Li shows a mounting cavity is provided in the sewage discharge box (see fig. 21, open space of 3), the driving part (501), the driving part further having a groove (see opening of driving part in fig. 20), and which is rotatably (see progression in fig. 18-19) installed in the mounting cavity, but does not show the particulars of a rotary connector between the driving part and the transmission part (631, 632 as modified by the belt of Blake), although there must be some connection between the transmission and the driving part, otherwise the device would not function. Attention is turned to which teaches a similar rotary discharge toilet having a driving part (52) with a groove (52e) and a rotary connector (35) with a rib (see ribs in fig. 18), the groove and rib cooperating to synchronize motion between the driving part, rotary connector, and the transmission (60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time to have provided a connector which is able to synchronize movement between the driving part and the transmission part in the device of Li so that the pipe can rotate to discharge waste as intended. The choice to use mating grooves and ribs is a design consideration well within the purview of the ordinary artisan. As noted above, if there is no intervening connector, Li is non-functional. Under the proposed modification, the rotary connector will also be installed in the mounting cavity, since the transmission part is. See fig. 19.
Conclusion
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