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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to communication filed on 06/11/2026. Claims 1-19 remain pending, with claim 1 currently amended.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/11/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 2147588 A (hereinafter Zinkil) in view of CN 101360867 A (hereinafter Brown) using attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Zinkil discloses a urinal comprising a urinal body (1), the urinal body comprising a nozzle (6, 7) and a water inlet (5), a flushing surface (8, 9) comprising an opposite surface (9) facing a person when in use, wherein the opposite surface (9) of the flushing surface comprises a curve surfaced (fig. 2, 3), and the curve surface has a curve shape outline obtained by transecting the curve surface with a horizontal plane (horizontal plane defined by location of cross-section 4-4 as shown in fig. 3; cross-section is shown in fig. 4). Zinkil is silent as to the details of the curve shape, and thus fails to show it is a Brachistochrone Curve, i.e. a curve of fastest descent or cycloid shape. Attention is turned to Brown in the same field of endeavor of urinals which teaches shaping a flushing surface opposite surface of a urinal as a cycloid (i.e. Brachistochrone Curve) to maximize rinsing downward and prevent splashing for maximizing a flushing area (“the inner surface 24 generally has an outer cycloid or heart or heart-shaped outline. opening 18 is preferably located towards the one side of the cylinder 12 to cylinder 12 of inner surface 24 (including cylinder 12 at the bottom of the water outlet 22) are not arranged in a line with the opening 18. With this configuration, the urine downward and away from the straight hole 18 so as to prevent splashing and evaporation”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select a Brachistochrone Curve with a Brachistochrone Curve shape outlet obtained by transecting the Brachistochrone Curve surface with a horizontal plane to maximize rinsing downward and prevent splashing as evidenced by the teaching of Brown mentioned above.
Regarding claim 2, Zinkil as modified by Brown shows wherein a line connecting the water inlet and the nozzle on the flushing surface constitutes a centerline, and a point on the centerline is a point with the smallest curvature on the Brachistochrone Curve surface (note Zinkil annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
257
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Zinkil as modified by Brown shows wherein the Brachistochrone Curve surface is symmetric about the centerline (note Zinkil annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 4, Zinkil as modified by Brown shows wherein the Brachistochrone Curve starts from a point on the centerline and extends toward two sides thereof in a horizontal direction (note Zinkil annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 5, Zinkil as modified by Brown shows wherein the flushing surface further includes oblique side surfaces (14) located on two sides of the opposite surface (fig. 4), being inclined planes, and having a circular arc transition with the Brachistochrone Curve surface (note annotated fig. above).
Regarding claim 6, Zinkil as modified by Brown shows wherein the flushing surface further includes a water sealing surface (9) located between the two oblique side surfaces, and having an outline including a Brachistochrone Curve shape and a circular arc shape and obtained by transecting the water sealing surface with a horizontal plane (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Zinkil fails to show wherein the Brachistochrone Curve surface, the oblique side surfaces and the water sealing surface form a cone with an inclined opening, and the lowest point of the inclined opening is located on the water sealing surface. Attention is again turned to Brown which shows the interior of a urinal forming a cone with an inclined opening, with the lowest point of the inclined opening coinciding with a water sealing surface (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the urinal of Zinkil to be shaped as described above to allow a user a more comfortable urinating position that still ensures minimal splashback as evidenced by the teachings of Brown.
Regarding claim 8, Zinkil as modified by Brown shows wherein an intersection of the Brachistochrone Curve surface, the oblique side surfaces and the water sealing surface is a circular arc transition (see Zinkil fig. 2, 3 the bottom basin area has circular arc transitions between the surfaces that define the bottom).
Claim(s) 9 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinkil and Brown as applied to claims 1-8 and 10 above, and further in view of US Patent 7331068 A (hereinafter Tichenor).
Regarding claim 9, Zinkil and Brown fails to show wherein a water pressure of a flushing water sprayed by the nozzle is less than 0.7MPa. Attention is turned to Tichenor in the same field of endeavor of urinals which shows utilizing a spray nozzle at 80 psi (which is less than 0.7MPa)(col. 2, ln. 6-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select an appropriate water pressure level based on a user’s needs, to select less than 0.7MPa would be an obvious choice known in the art to produce the expected result of a water conserving urinal as evidenced by the teachings of Tichenor mentioned above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 18, and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Zinkil and Brown fails to show a Brachistochrone Curve surface. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Brown was relied upon as a teaching of a Brachistochrone Curve surface. A Brachistochrone Curve is defined by a cycloid, which is taught by Brown. The rejection is deemed proper and maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights