DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final Office Action for application number 18/857,416 - DUAL-TRAP TOILET HAVING IMPROVED PRESSURIZATION AND FLUSHING, filed on 10/16/24. Claims 1-23 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant’s reply dated 7/16/26. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennessy (US 5,404,597) in view of Hennessy (US 8,196,231)(hereinafter Hennessy ‘231).
Regarding Claim 1 Hennessy discloses a toilet assembly (Fig. 1-6; ABSTRACT), comprising
a toilet tank (12, Fig. 1; col 2, In 36-51) to hold flush water;
a flush valve assembly (25, Fig. 1) positioned in the toilet tank (12, Fig. 1; col 2, In 36-51);
a toilet bowl (32, Fig. 1-2; col 2, In 36-51);
a trapway (42, Fig. 2; col 2, In 52-66) in flow communication with the toilet bowl (32, Fig. 1-2; col 2, In 36-51);
a container (46, 78, Fig. 1; col 3, In 16-30) positioned in the toilet tank (12, Fig. 1), and
a connecting tube (48, Fig. 1-2; col 2, In 36-51) extending from an interior of the container (46, 78, Fig. 1; col 3, In 16-30) to the trapway (42, Fig. 2), wherein:
the container (46, 78, Fig. 1; col 3, In 16-30) is in flow communication with the toilet tank (12, Fig. 1), the container (46, 78, Fig. 1; col 3, In 16-30) having an open lower end (76, Fig. 1 - the open bottom end of container 78) and a closed upper end (Fig. 1-2 - the closed top end of 46), wherein the upper end of the container contains a first portion of pressurized air (Fig. 2 - the pressurized air between water level 16 and the closed top end of 46) when the toilet assembly is between flush cycles (col 3, In 31-49),
the trapway (42, Fig. 2; col 2, In 52-66) comprises a sump trap (40, Fig. 2), a first upstream weir (Fig. 2 - the top weir between upper trap 40 and lower trap 44), a lower trap (44, Fig. 2), and a second downstream weir (54, Fig. 2), and
the connecting tube (48, Fig. 1-2; col 2, In 36-51) is coupled to the trapway at a position (42, Fig. 2) between the sump trap (40, Fig. 2) and the lower trap (44, Fig. 2), and provides flow communication between the container (46, 78, Fig. 1; col 3, In 16-30) and the trapway (42, Fig. 2; col 2, In 52-66), and
the trapway (42, Fig. 2; col 2, In 52-66) contains a second portion of pressurized air (Fig. 2 - the air between upper trap 40 and lower trap 44) when the toilet assembly is between flush cycles (col 3, In 31-49), but does not specifically teach wherein a volume of the first portion of pressurized air is less than 30% of a volume of the second portion of pressurized air. However, this is considered a design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This is not considered critical. The instant invention details that the second portion of pressurized air may be less than OR equal to 30% and still function as intended and predictably. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet to increase the effectiveness of the flushing when assisted by vacuum pressure, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Hennessy discloses wherein the container comprises a continuous side wall (46; Fig. 1), an upper end wall (top of 46), but fails to show an inner wall that together bound a vacuum chamber of the container. However, Hennessy ‘231 shows a container (42) with an inner wall (surrounds 58; Fig. 2) that together bound a vacuum chamber of the container (shown as E; Fig. 2; note, col. 2, lines 36-37). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hennessy to include an inner wall that together bound a vacuum chamber of the container for the purpose of making the container water level drop rapidly and creating velocity for an efficient bowl cleaning as shown by Hennessy ‘231.
Regarding Claim 2 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1, wherein, between flush cycles, the first portion of pressurized air (Fig. 2 - the pressurized air between water level 16 and the closed top end of 46) is positioned above flush water (16, Fig. 2) in the container (46, 78, Fig. 1; col 3, In 16-30).
Regarding Claim 3 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1, wherein, upon discharging water into a flush valve core (26, Fig. 1; col 2, In 36-51) to initiate a flush cycle (col 3, In 31-49), reduced pressure is created in one or both of the first portion of pressurized air and the second portion of pressurized air (Fig. 2 - the air between upper trap 40 and lower trap 44).
Regarding Claim 4 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly claim 1, wherein, upon re-filling the toilet tank with water to end a flush cycle, increased pressure is created in one or both of the first portion of pressurized air and the second portion of pressurized air (when water increases in volume from filling after a flush cycle, air pressure in the closed container increases; as water fills 46 the air pressure in the container increases; first portion of pressurized air as shown between 16 and 46 ; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly claim 1, but fails to specifically show wherein, between flush cycles, the first portion of pressurized air and the second portion of pressurized air are pressurized at a pressure greater than or equal to 0.5 cm of water above atmospheric pressure and less than or equal to 5 cm of water above atmospheric pressure. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This is not considered critical. The instant invention details that the first and second portions of pressurized air may be between 0.1 cm and 5.0 cm above atmospheric pressure (¶ 0096]) and still function as intended and predictably. Finally, it is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet to increase the effectiveness of the flushing when assisted by vacuum pressure, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 6 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein the first upstream weir is positioned above a highest point of a trapway inlet by an offset distance of greater than or equal to 2 inches. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This is not considered critical. The instant invention details that the first upstream weir is positioned above a highest point of a trapway inlet by an offset distance of between 0.5 inches and 5.5 inches (¶ 0070]) and still function as intended and predictably. Finally, it is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the trapway offset distance to increase the effectiveness of the flushing when assisted by vacuum pressure, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 7 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to specifically show wherein the first upstream weir is positioned at point that, between flush cycles, is vertically higher than a water seal of the toilet bowl by a distance of greater than or equal to 0.2 inches (Fig. 2 the weir appears to be higher than the water seal at 50). However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This is not considered critical. The instant invention details that the first upstream weir is positioned at point that, between flush cycles, is vertically higher than a water seal of the toilet bowl by a distance of between 0.1 inches up to 1.8 inches (¶ 0071]) and still function as intended and predictably. Finally, it is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the such that the first upstream weir is positioned at point that, between flush cycles, is vertically higher than a water seal as desired or necessary for keeping sewer gases from entering the bowl.
Regarding Claim 8 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1,wherein the flush valve assembly comprises a valve body (shown at 23; Fig. 2) extending from a valve inlet (26) to a valve outlet (to 28) and a valve cover (24) having a seal to enclose the valve inlet (26; sealing is inherent).
Regarding Claim 9 Hennessy discloses the toilet of claim 1, but fails to show an interface having an upper end coupled to a lower end of the connecting tube and a lower end coupled to the trapway at a location between the sump trap and the lower trap, the interface lower end having an upstream portion coupled to the trapway at a first point above the first upstream weir, the interface lower end having a downstream portion coupled to the trapway at a second point downstream of the first point, and the interface lower end is wider in a first direction than in a second direction. However, Hennessy ‘231 shows a similar toilet having a vacuum assisted flush toilet device having an interface (shown in Fig. 3, as passage between 120 and A to above the weir in the outlet) having an upper end coupled to a lower end of the connecting tube (90) and a lower end coupled to the trapway at a location between the sump trap and the lower trap (Fig. 3), the interface lower end having an upstream portion coupled to the trapway at a first point above the first upstream weir, the interface lower end having a downstream portion coupled to the trapway at a second point downstream of the first point, and the interface lower end is wider in a first direction than in a second direction (Fig. 3; wider near the top A line). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hennessy to include an interface connected to the lower end of the connecting tube and a lower end connected to the trapway, with the interface lower end wider in a first direction than in a second direction, for the purpose of initiating the suction in the trapway drawing the contents of the bowl into the trapway as shown by Hennessy ‘231 (note, col. 3, lines 27-29).
Regarding Claim 10 Hennessy as combined with Hennessy ‘231 discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1, wherein the inner wall bounds an inner chamber of the container (bounds 58; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein a vertical distance between a top surface of the connecting tube and an inner surface of the upper end wall is greater than or equal to 10 mm and less than or equal to 35 mm. This is a design consideration within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, this is not considered critical as the instant invention details that a vertical distance between a top surface of the connecting tube and an inner surface of the upper end wall may be between 5mm and 45mm (¶ [00098]) and still function predictably. Finally, it is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of water contained within the toilet(MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of water contained within the toilet to increase the effectiveness of the flushing, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 12 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1, but fails to show wherein an internal diameter of the connecting tube is greater than or equal to 12 mm and less than or equal to 20 mm. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This is not considered critical. The instant invention details that an internal diameter of the connecting may bet between 12 mm and less than or equal to 30 mm (¶ 0099]) and still function as intended and predictably. Finally, it is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the internal diameter of the connecting tube so that the effectiveness of the flushing when assisted by vacuum pressure, as desired or necessary meets the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 13 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1, wherein, between flush cycles, a vertical distance between a top surface of the connecting tube and a water level in the toilet tank is greater than or equal to 45 mm and less than or equal to 55 mm. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This is not considered critical. The instant invention details that a vertical distance between a top surface of the connecting tube and a water level in the toilet tank between 25 mm and 75 mm (¶ 0098]) and still function as intended and predictably. Finally, it is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and a vertical distance between a top surface of the connecting tube and a water level in the toilet tank so that the effectiveness of the flushing when assisted by vacuum pressure, as desired or necessary meets the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 14 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly according to claim 1, Hennessy teaches the pressurized air is sealed and contained between the water level and a portion of the trapway during flushing cycles (col 3, In 31-61), but does not specifically teach wherein the pressurized air in the trapway exerts force on water in the lower trap such that an upstream water level in the lower trap is lower than a downstream water level in the lower trap by an offset distance of greater than or equal to 15 mm between flush cycles. This is a design consideration within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, this is not considered critical as the instant invention details that the offset distance may be 1mm up to 20mm (¶ [0107]) and still function predictably. Finally, it is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet to increase the effectiveness of the flushing when assisted by vacuum pressure, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 15 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 14, between flush cycles, the first portion of pressurized air (Fig. 2 - the pressurized air between water level 16 and the closed top end of 46) is positioned above flush water (16, Fig. 2) in the container (46, 78, Fig. 1; col 3, In 16-30).
Regarding Claim 16 Hennessy discloses the toilet claim 14, wherein, upon discharging water into a flush valve core (26, Fig. 1; col 2, In 36-51) to initiate a flush cycle (col 3, In 31-49), reduced pressure is created in one or both of the first portion of pressurized air and the second portion of pressurized air (Fig. 2 - the air between upper trap 40 and lower trap 44).
Regarding Claim 17 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 14, wherein, re-filling the toilet tank with water to end a flush cycle, increased pressure is created in one or both of the first portion of pressurized air and the second portion of pressurized air (when water increases in volume from filling after a flush cycle, air pressure in the closed container increases; as water fills 46 the air pressure in the container increases; first portion of pressurized air as shown between 16 and 46 ; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 1, wherein during a flush cycle (col 3, In 31-49), the toilet assembly flushes a volume of flush water (Fig. 2 - the water defining water level 16), wherein:
a first portion of the volume of flush water (Fig. 2 - the water stored in the tank 12 outside of container 46) is stored in the toilet tank (12, Fig. 1; col 2, In 36-51) prior to the flush cycle;
a second portion of the volume of flush water (Fig. 2 - the water stored in the upper chamber of the container 46) is stored in the vacuum chamber prior to the flush cycle; and
a third portion of the volume of flush water (Fig. 2 - the water stored in the lower chamber of the container 46) is stored in the inner chamber prior to the flush cycle, but does not specifically teach wherein the third portion is greater than or equal to 40% of the volume of flush water. This is a design consideration within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, this is not considered critical as the instant invention details that the third portion volume may be 30% to 90% (¶ [00093]) and still function predictably. Finally, it is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of water contained within the toilet(MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of water contained within the toilet to increase the effectiveness of the flushing, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 19 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 18, but fails to specifically show wherein the first portion is less than or equal to 20% of the volume of flush water. However, this is considered a design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This is not considered critical. The instant invention details that the second portion of pressurized air may be less than OR equal to 30% and still function as intended and predictably. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet to increase the effectiveness of the flushing when assisted by vacuum pressure, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 20 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 18, but fails to specifically shown wherein the second portion is less than or equal to 40% of the volume of flush water. However, this is considered a design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This is not considered critical. The instant invention details that the second portion of pressurized air may be less than 10% and up to greater than 60% (¶ [0091]) and still function as intended and predictably. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of pressurized air contained within the toilet (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the toilet and the volumes of water contained within the toilet to increase the effectiveness of the flushing when assisted by vacuum pressure, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 21 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 18, wherein, between flush cycles, the container comprises pressurized (Fig. 2 - the pressurized air between water level 16 and the closed top end of 46) is positioned above flush water (16, Fig. 2) in the container (46, 78, Fig. 1; col 3, In 16-30).
Regarding Claim 22 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 18, wherein, upon discharging water into a flush valve core (26, Fig. 1; col 2, In 36-51) to initiate a flush cycle (col 3, In 31-49), reduced pressure is created in the trapway (Fig. 2 - the air between upper trap 40 and lower trap 44).
Regarding Claim 23 Hennessy discloses the toilet assembly of claim 18, wherein, upon discharging water into a flush valve core (26, Fig. 1; col 2, In 36-51) to initiate a flush cycle (col 3, In 31-49), reduced pressure is created in one or both of the first portion of pressurized air and the second portion of pressurized air (Fig. 2 - the air between upper trap 40 and lower trap 44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with regard to Hennessy ‘231 that Hennessy teaches away from the present invention, specifically wherein the first portion of pressurized air in the upper end of the container is less than 30 % of the volume of the second portion of pressurized air in the trapway between flush cycles. However, this is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record. Hennessy ‘231 is not relied upon in combination to meet that specific claim language. The claim language is considered a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art and not critical. Applicant has not overcome the rejection of record by showing the criticality of the limitation. Therefore the rejection of record meets the claim limitations in full and has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Andersson et al. (US 6,457,187) shows the general state of the art; Shirai (US Pub. 2007/0250998) shows a similar double weir toilet trapway.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5163. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID ANGWIN can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 8/3/2026
Prosecution Insights