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
Claims 10-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/10/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 210.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 355,655,945.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bolt cover must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicants are reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. For example, in line 1, “The present disclosure” should be deleted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase, “the raised rim” should read –a raised rim--.
In claim 1, the term, “adjustment” is unclear since there is no mechanism referencing how the grips adjust.
Since claims 2-10 are in the chain of dependency, they too are subjected to the same objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1,3,7,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)2) as being anticipated by US 20150368891 A1 to Miller.
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a toilet flange nut 20 comprising:
(a) a cylindrical body 25 ((col. 4, line 62; fig 3) comprising a top end (proximate reference numeral 27b;fig. 2), a bottom end (proximate reference numeral 26;fig. 3), an outside surface 23,25 and a bore defined through the center of the cylindrical body (fig. 3) to form an inside surface 26 (col.5, line 2), wherein at least a portion of the inside surface is threaded (col. 5, line 5; fig 3);
(b) at least four adjustment grips 22 (col. 4, line 60; fig. 2) extending outwardly from the outside surface of the cylindrical body while connecting to a top surface of the raised rim 24 (col. 4, lines 58-68; fig. 2) and capable of adjusting clockwise with the nut (col. 5, lines 16-17); and
(c) at least four grip spaces (see red arrow below), each grip space being located on the outside surface and in between two adjustment grips.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
159
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
265
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
260
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Miller further discloses a raised rim (fig. 4) formed as part of the bottom end of the cylindrical body, the raised rim comprising a first diameter positioned at the bottom end 28 and a second diameter positioned closer to the top end (proximate reference numeral 24) with respect to the first diameter, wherein the first diameter is smaller than the second diameter (col. 5, lines 8-12; fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Miller further discloses the toilet flange nut comprises at least one of a polymer comprising a polyamide, a polyethylene, a polyvinyl chloride, a polyoxymethylene, a polystyrene, a low density polyethylene, a high density polyethylene, a polycarbonate, a polyester, a silicone, a polymethacrylate, a tetrafluoroethylene, a polyurethane, a polypropylene, a polyacrylonitrile, a styrene-butadiene, a polyethylene terephthalate, and copolymers thereof; and an additive or filler comprising a fiber glass, a ceramic, a plasticizer, a stabilizer, an antistatic agent (col. 10, lines 63-68 through col. 11, lines 1-10 ).
Regarding claim 8, Miller further discloses the toilet flange nut comprises a steel, an aluminum, an iron, a magnesium, a copper, a gold, a lithium, a tin, a silver, a platinum, a tantalum, a nickel, a zinc, a tungsten, and alloys thereof (col. 11, lines 11-25).
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) 2, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150368891 A1 to Miller as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 20150322662 A1 to Schuster et al.
Regarding claim 2, Miller does not disclose a non-threaded portion of an inside surface of the cylindrical body. Instead, Miller indicates an internally threaded bore 26 (col. 4, line 63-64). Schuster et al teaches a bolt guide 64 (fig. 7) comprising a non-threaded portion of the inside surface of the cylindrical body that begins at the bottom end and extends towards the top end [0037]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miller as taught by Schuster such that a non-threaded portion of the inside surface allows for ease of mating the bolt to the nut and align with the remaining threaded portions.
PNG
media_image4.png
414
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Miller modified by Schuster does not disclose a bolt guide diameter ranging from about 0.8 cm to about 1.6 cm. It appears that the device of Miller would operate equally well with the claimed diameter of the bolt guide, since the bolt guide is intended to receive a bolt having dimensions sized and configured to align with a nut. Further, applicants have not disclosed that the range claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (e.g., the specification indicates various ranges for a diameter dimension for other features of the device, Spec. ppg 7-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Miller to have a bolt guide diameter ranging from about 0.8 cm to about 1.6 cm, because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Miller.
Regarding claim 5, Miller modified by Schuster does not disclose the bolt guide has a length ranging from about 0.5 cm to about 1.0 cm. It appears that the device of Miller would operate equally well with the claimed length of the bolt guide, since the bolt guide is intended to receive a bolt having dimensions sized and configured to align with a nut. Further, applicants have not disclosed that the range claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (e.g., the specification indicates various ranges for a diameter dimension for other features of the device, Spec. ppg 7-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Miller to have the bolt guide has a length ranging from about 0.5 cm to about 1.0 cm, because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Miller.
Claim(s) 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150368891 A1 to Miller as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Miller is silent regarding the threaded portion of the inside surface has a diameter ranging from about 0.5 cm to about 1.5 cm, and the threaded portion of the inside surface has a length ranging from about 0.8 cm to about 1.6 cm. Instead, Miller indicates a cylinder 24 with a diameter greater than the width of the body 23 and a cylinder 28 with a diameter less than the width of the body 23 (col. 5, lines 8-12; fig. 4). It appears that the device of Miller would operate equally well with the claimed diameter and length of the threaded portion of the inside surface, since the threaded portion of the inside surface is intended to surround and mate with a bolt having dimensions sized and configured to align with the nut. Further, applicant has not disclosed that the range claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, indicating simply various options that the diameter may be within the claimed ranges (Spec. ppg 7-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Miller to have the threaded portion of the inside surface has a diameter ranging from about 0.5 cm to about 1.5 cm, and the threaded portion of the inside surface has a length ranging from about 0.8 cm to about 1.6 cm, because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Miller.
Regarding claim 9, Miller is silent regarding the raised rim has the first diameter ranging from about 2.4 cm to about 3.4 cm, and the raised rim has the second diameter ranging from about 2.5 cm to about 3.5 cm. Instead, Miller indicates a cylinder 24 with a diameter greater than the width of the body 23 and a cylinder 28 with a diameter less than the width of the body 23 (col. 5, lines 8-12; fig. 4). It appears that the device of Miller would operate equally well with the claimed diameter of the rim, since the rim provides a base for the cylindrical body and the dimensions are sized and configured to align with the component parts of the nut. Further, applicant has not disclosed that the diameter range claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, since the specification indicates various options (e.g., component parts having dimensions within various ranges, Spec. ppg 7-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Miller to have he raised rim has the first diameter ranging from about 2.4 cm to about 3.4 cm, and the raised rim has the second diameter ranging from about 2.5 cm to about 3.5 cm, because it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Miller.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150368891 A1 to Miller as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 8210785 B1 to Gager and US 11994236 B2 to Villanueva.
Regarding claim 10, Miller does not disclose the raised rim is disc-shaped and configured to couple to a bolt cover without requiring silicone, a glue, or other adhesives. Instead, Miller indicates the rim is cylindrical and indirectly couples to a bolt cover 30 (fig. 2). Gager teaches a disc-shaped rim couple to a bolt cover 214 (col. 4., line 41) but is silent as to the coupling mechanism. Villanueva teaches (Fig. 9; 0052) a top portion 622 welded to center plate 620. It appears that the device of Miller would operate equally well with the claimed shape of the rim, since the rim provides a base for the cylindrical body, whereas the shapes are sized and configured to align with other components of the nut. Further, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Miller as taught by Gager and Villanueva such that including a disc shape rim is complementary to the shape of the bolt and nut and further adhering the components using a durable joining mechanism not susceptible to short term wear and tear.
Gager/Villanueva:
PNG
media_image5.png
198
222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
444
474
media_image6.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 20250341085 A1to Bubb is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of mounting 3a toilet to a floor using a boot configuration whereas toilet mounting hole 112 in base 110 receives flange bolt 286 in nut 285.
PNG
media_image7.png
312
418
media_image7.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
Prosecution Insights