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: in para. [0015], applicant is advised to format the reference numerals in a vertical list for readability.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s definition of “vertical midvertical surface” set forth in para. [0025] is acknowledged. The claim limitation will be interpreted in accordance with that definition.
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, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murayama (JP 2010150920).
Regarding claim 1, Murayama discloses a toilet body (10), provided with a bowl cavity (40) and a sewage drainage portion (see annotated figure below) connected to the bowl cavity, wherein the sewage drainage portion is provided with a trapway communicating with an outlet of the bowl cavity (see annotated figure below), and the trapway is configured to communicate with a rotary sewage drainage pipe (21), so that sewage in the bowl cavity enters the rotary sewage drainage pipe via the trapway and is drained; and wherein in a sewage drainage direction of the trapway, a bottom wall of the trapway is obliquely arranged downwards, and an inclination angle of the bottom wall of the trapway relative to a horizontal direction is set to be greater than 0 degrees and less than or equal to 34 degrees (angle α is 8 degrees, see p. third full paragraph of the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Murayama also shows that a top wall of the trapway is inclined downward in parallel with the bottom wall of the trapway (see annotated figure below, dotted lines marked by║).
Regarding claim 8, Murayama shows that an outer wall of the sewage drainage portion is provided with a connection portion that is fixedly connected to a sewage drainage body (30) of a toilet. See in fig. 6, outer wall and flanged portion thereof at 24 is connected to flanged portions of box 30. See annotated figure below.
Regarding claim 9, Murayama shows that an area of the bowl cavity located opposite an inlet of the trapway is provided as a sloped surface that smoothly connects with the trapway. See annotated figure below.
Regarding claim 10, Murayma shows a toilet (fig. 6) comprising the toilet body (10) of claim 1, and the rotary sewage drainage pipe (21) communicating with the trapway.
Regarding claim 16, Murayma shows a toilet (fig. 6) comprising the toilet body (10) of claim 3, and the rotary sewage drainage pipe (21) communicating with the trapway.
PNG
media_image1.png
600
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
393
432
media_image2.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) 2, 4 - 6, and 11 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama.
Regarding claim 2, Murayama shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides a horizontal distance between an outlet of the trapway and the outlet of the bowl cavity (see annotated figure above), but is silent as to the range being 3.2cm to 9.7cm. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed dimension presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the trapway of Murayama to perform equally well as applicant's. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Murayama to be dimensioned as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Murayama shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides that the trapway has a minimum height taken at a vertical midvertical surface thereof (e.g., perpendicular from a lower to a top surface of the trap, note that the pipe of the trapway necessarily has a height), but is silent as to it being greater than or equal 5.5cm but less than or equal to 8.5cm. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed dimension presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the trapway of Murayama to perform equally well as applicant's. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Murayama to be dimensioned as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Murayama shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides a minimum flow area of the trap way (note that the pipe of the trapway necessarily defines an area), but fails to specify that it is in the range of 28.0cm2-68.0cm2. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed dimension presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the trapway of Murayama to perform equally well as applicant's. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Murayama to be dimensioned as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 11, Murayama also shows that a top wall of the trapway is inclined downward in parallel with the bottom wall of the trapway (see annotated figure above, dotted lines marked by║).
Regarding claim 12, Murayama shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further provides that the trapway has a minimum height taken at a vertical midvertical surface thereof (e.g., perpendicular from a lower to a top surface of the trap, note that the pipe of the trapway necessarily has a height), but is silent as to it being greater than or equal 5.5cm. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed dimension presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the trapway of Murayama to perform equally well as applicant's. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Murayama to be dimensioned as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Murayama shows that an outer wall of the sewage drainage portion is provided with a connection portion that is fixedly connected to a sewage drainage body (30) of a toilet. See in fig. 6, outer wall and flanged portion thereof at 24 is connected to flanged portions of box 30. See annotated figure above.
Regarding claim 14, Murayama shows that an area of the bowl cavity located opposite an inlet of the trapway is provided as a sloped surface that smoothly connects with the trapway. See annotated figure above.
Regarding claim 15, Murayma shows a toilet (fig. 6) comprising the toilet body (10) of claim 2, and the rotary sewage drainage pipe (21) communicating with the trapway.
Regarding claim 17, Murayma shows a toilet (fig. 6) comprising the toilet body (10) of claim 4, and the rotary sewage drainage pipe (21) communicating with the trapway.
Regarding claim 18, Murayma shows a toilet (fig. 6) comprising the toilet body (10) of claim 5, and the rotary sewage drainage pipe (21) communicating with the trapway.
Regarding claim 19, Murayma shows a toilet (fig. 6) comprising the toilet body (10) of claim 6, and the rotary sewage drainage pipe (21) communicating with the trapway.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama, as applied to claim 6, in view of Liu (CN 1435544).
Regarding claim 7, Murayama shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that the sewage drainage portion is provided with a protrusion at an inlet of the trapway that protrudes downwardly. Attention is turned to Liu which teaches a similar toilet having a rotatory discharge valve and a downwardly extending protrusion at an inlet of the trapway (see annotated figure below). It would have been obvious to have provided a bowl and trapway with a protrusion such as that taught by Liu in the device of Murayama in order to guide and baffle the flow of fluid and sewage in the toilet. The combination results in the vertical height and flow area being smaller at the inlet than at other areas as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Murayma as modified shows a toilet (fig. 6) comprising the toilet body (10) of claim 7, and the rotary sewage drainage pipe (21) communicating with the trapway.
PNG
media_image3.png
414
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Other references of record teach a protrusion which lowers the height at an inlet of the trap way, such as JP202125387 (see fig. 2, 6)
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