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 without traverse of Species II, Figs. 101 and 102 in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 14, 16-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected species I, III, IV and VIII there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Specifically, claims 1-6 and 11 are drawn to species IV, Fig. 104. Claim 8, drawn to species III, Fig. 103. Claim 14 is drawn to species VIII, Figs. 108A and 108B. Claim 8, drawn to species III, Fig. 103. Claims 16-20 are drawn to species VII, Figs. 107A-107B and species VIII, Figs. 108A-08B. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/1/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0277], line 6, before “connector 783”, “inlet” should be changed to --line--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7, 9-10, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo (5,673,439) in view of Boodaghian et al. (2015/0188171).
Kuo discloses a toilet comprising: a toilet tank 11; a toilet bow 10; a flow bead container 1; an inlet line 13 configured to connect a water supply to the flow bead container 1; and at least one outlet line 12 configured to connect the flow bead container 1 to transfer water altered by a solid detergent or tablet 60 out of the flow bead container. Kuo does not teach the flow bead container including a plurality of template assisted crystallization (TAC) beads. Attention is directed to Boodaghian et al. which teaches a water treating system comprising a water treatment unit 325 utilizing Template Assisted Crystallization (TAC) beads for treating the water before sending to flush toilets ([0029]) to prevent formation of deposits and scales. Burt teaches a sanitary/cleaning device for a toilet comprising a container having a plurality of beads 40 of chemical agents or compositions (Fig. 5, [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to employ Template Assist Crystallization (TAC) bead with Kuo bead container in views of the teaching of Boodaghian et al. and Burt for preventing formation of deposits and scales on a toilet.
Regarding claim 9, the flow beads taught by Boodaghian et al. are configured to change minerals in the water from ionic form to crystalline form.
Regarding claim 10, the flow beads are configured to attach to urine scale.
Regarding claim 12, he flow bead container 1 is external to the toilet tank 11.
Regarding claim 13, the flow bead container 1 is connected to a water supply for the toilet tank 11.
Regarding claim 15, the toilet comprises: a cover or the flow bead container 1 configured to provide access to remove the TAC beads from the flow bead container 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saylor et al. and Mercer teach a toilet sanitary device comprising a chemical container, an inlet connected to a water supply and an outlet connected to a toilet bowl.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 517-270-3735. 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.
HUYEN D. LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/HUYEN D LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights