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
Applicants’ election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 08/12/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is not proper between Group I and II. Applicant argues that the Office Action does not establish that the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed. In this case, the combination (claim 1) does require the particulars of the subcombination (claim 10). Therefore, the restriction between Groups I and II is improper. Applicants request that claims 1-17 be examined and Claims 18-20 have been withdrawn. This is found persuasive; therefore, claims 1-17 are pending for examination.
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) 1-4,8-13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103362185 to Kitamura et al in view of US 0577900 A to Wallace.
Regarding claims 1and 10, Kitamura discloses a toilet C comprising a bowl 10; a tank 11,12 as a water source for flushing W the bowl; a trapway 16 configured to form a siphon downstream of the bowl (fig. 5), the trapway16 including a trapway inlet 17 connected at a lower end of the bowl and extending downstream from the bowl; a bypass passage 40 connecting the trapway and the tank; ([para 0063-0068]; fig 5). Kitamura is silent as to a water lock configured to prevent waste gas from passing to the tank. Instead, Kitamura suggests air in a toilet 10 to drain passage 16 and a break-seal [0046]. Wallace teaches a water lock (col. 5, lines 15-50; pg. 3) configured to prevent gas from passing to the tank (col. 3, lines 59-60 through col. 4, lines 1-85 and col. 5, lines 49-50). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kitamura as taught by Wallace such that establishing a seal to prevent foul sewer gases from passing back up into a building room; yet still allowing wastewater to flow through.
Kitamura/Wallace:
PNG
media_image1.png
438
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Kitamura further discloses an inlet channel (fig. 5; see opening above valve 14), wherein the bypass passage 40 is adjacent to the inlet 17 channel.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kitamura is silent as to water resting in the water lock between flushes. Instead, Kitamura suggests air in a toilet 10 to drain passage 16 and a break-seal [0046]. Wallace teaches a water lock (col. 5, lines 15-50; pg. 3; i.e., configured to prevent gas from passing to the tank; col. 3, lines 59-60 through col. 4, lines 1-85 and col. 5, lines 49-50) and a minimal amount of water (e.g., quarter of an inch deep) rests in the water lock between flushes particularly at a start and end of a flush cycle. At the start of the flushing, all air is driven out of the passage below the first turn K and by the time water reaches the L turn (fig. 4), water spreads out the full width of the passage and continues to drop onto turn M to which it will flow into the outlet (col. 3, lines 59-68 through col. 4, lines 1-85 and col. 5, lines 16-20; pgs. 2-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kitamura as taught by Wallace such that maintaining a small amount of water establishing a physical seal that blocks foul smelling dangerous sewer gases from entering into a building or room.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Kitamura further discloses the passage exposes the trapway to ambient pressure to at least partially break the siphon in the trapway. Further, Kitamura discloses air in the flushing water tank 12 is led into top portion 18 of elbow pipe 19 through bypass passage 40 (i.e., passage 40 is configured to allow ambient air from outside the toilet to pass through toward trapway 16), and siphon action disappears under the condition that the sound of seal breaking will not be produced, thus the flow water W within pipe 19 is stopped. A pressure differential between the trapway 16 and an environment surrounding the toilet causes a negative pressure to form in the passage 40. Prior to the water level of the bowl 10 being lowered below the top of the trapway inlet 17, air is led into the trapway 16 to break off the siphon, so as to reduce the noise which is generated due to the break-off of siphon [0063-0068].
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Kitamura further discloses the bypass passage 40 is connected to an upper surface of trapway 16 (fig. 5).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Kitamura further discloses the bypass passage 40 is connected downstream (fig. 5) of an upper peak (proximate reference numeral 18) of the upper surface 18 of trapway 16.
Claim(s) 5-6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura et al and Wallace as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 20230183963 A1 to Schibur et al.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Kitamura modified by Wallace is silent as to a pedestal. Instead, Kitamura indicates a bowl 10. Schibur et al teaches a pedestal 212 including bowl 212. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kitamura as taught by Schibur such that a pedestal attached to a bowl increases the height of toilet for different sized users.
PNG
media_image3.png
514
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Kitamura modified by Wallace is silent as to the tank remote from a pedestal. Instead, Kitamura indicates a tank 11,12 Schibur et al teach a pedestal 212 including bowl 212 where the tank 218 is remote from the pedestal (fig. 19). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kitamura as taught by Schibur such that a tank is remoted or separated from the pedestal for accessibility, efficiency, safety and proper space utilization.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura et al and Wallace as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 4970732 A to Deng.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Kitamura does not disclose the tank configured to be installed and concealed within a wall. Deng teaches a tank 6 configured to be installed and concealed within a wall (col. 2, lines 27-35; fig. 1-5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Kitamura as taught by Deng such that concealing components within a wall provides efficient space utilization and accessibility.
PNG
media_image4.png
460
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
More specifically, US 20260201687 A1 to Jensen is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of dual-trap toilet 100 tank 104 having a trapway 106, toilet bowl 102, in flow communication, and including a vacuum chamber and an air transfer opening between an interior area of the vacuum chamber and an area outside the chamber. Whereas in a flush cycle the chamber and trapway contain pressurized air [0045-0049].
PNG
media_image5.png
408
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. 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 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.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
