DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final Office Action for application number 19/007,901 - TOILET EXHAUST SYSTEM, filed on 1/2/25. Claims 1-10 are pending.
This Final Office Action is in response to applicant’s reply dated 8/4/26. 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 § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sim (US 5,167,039).
Regarding Claim 1 Sim shows a toilet exhaust system (Fig. 2) for use with a toilet bowl (14), the exhaust system comprising: a motion sensor (13/60; Figs. 2& 5) configured to detect motion and to generate an output signal on detection of motion (via wire 40); a ventilator (36) in communication with the motion sensor (via wire 40; Fig. 3) and arranged to be activated in response to receiving the output signal from the motion sensor (note, col. 6, lines 15-22); and
an exhaust pipe (12, note, col. 4, lines 8-10) having a first end (Fig. 3, lower end) which, in use, opens into the toilet bowl and a second end (33; Fig. 3) via which air is exhausted, and wherein the ventilator is positioned directly within [[the]] (sic) exhaust pipe between the first and the second end such that air drawn from the toilet bowl passes through the ventilator before exiting the second end, so as to cause air to flow into from the toilet bowl, in use, and to draw air from the toilet bowl to the second end (note, col. 6, lines 40-58; note arrows Fig. 5).
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, 2, 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davoud et al. (US 11,828,054) in view of Moore (US Pub. 2011/0047686).
Regarding Claim 1 Davoud shows a toilet exhaust system (100) for use with a toilet bowl (105), the exhaust system comprising: a motion sensor (103) configured to detect motion and to generate an output signal on detection of motion (note, col. 5, lines 15-24); a ventilator (102) in communication with the motion sensor and arranged to be activated in response to receiving the output signal from the motion sensor (note, col. 5, lines 15-24); and
an exhaust pipe (101) having a first end which, in use, opens into the toilet bowl (at 215) and a second end via which air is exhausted (at 300). Davoud shows wherein the ventilator is between the first and the second end so as to cause air to flow out of the first end into the toilet bowl, in use, and to draw air from the toilet bowl to the second end, but fails to specifically show wherein the ventilator is positioned directly within the exhaust pipe, such that air is drawn from the toilet bowl passes through the ventilator before exiting the second end. However, Moore shows a similar odor/air exhausting toilet system with the ventilator (14) positioned directly within the exhaust pipe between the first and the second end, such that air is drawn from the toilet bowl passes through the ventilator before exiting the second end, so as to cause air to flow out of the first end into the toilet bowl (Fig. 2). 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 Davoud to include the ventilator in the exhaust pipe between the first and second end for the purpose of saving space and providing a compact system as shown by Moore.
Regarding Claim 2 Davoud shows the exhaust system of claim 1, further comprising a control unit (implicit in pump and provides for sensed/automatic operation; separate from manual operation; note, col. 5, lines 35-41) in communication with the ventilator and with the motion sensor (note, col. 5, lines 15-32).
Regarding Claim 6 Davoud shows the exhaust system of claim 1, wherein the motion sensor is arranged to be mounted, in use, to the toilet bowl (103; Fig. 1; note, col. 5, lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 8 Davoud shows the exhaust system of claim 1, wherein the ventilator is configured to turn off signal from the motion sensor (note, col. 5, lines 12-15; lines 35-37; pump turns off after low or no air flow). Davoud fails to show the ventilator is configured to turn off after a predetermined time. However, Moore details that the ventilator turns off after a predetermined time (¶ [0015]). 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 Davoud to include turning the ventilator off after a predetermine time as shown by Moore as well as after a predetermined air flow is reached for the purpose of saving power and battery life.
Regarding Claim 9 Davoud shows the exhaust system of claim 1, wherein the second end of the exhaust pipe opens into an exhaust stack (300 outside vent line; note, col. 4, lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 10 Davoud shows the exhaust system of claim 1, further including the toilet bowl (105).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davoud et al. (US 11,828,054) in view of Moore (US Pub. 2011/0047686) in further view of Halloran et al. (US Pub. 2024/0254750).
Regarding Claim 3 Davoud shows the exhaust system of claim 1 or, further comprising an may be a motion sensor or may detect waste material in the bowl and activate the ventilator but fails to show the sensor is an additional sensor to the motion sensor separate from and operable independently of the motion sensor and configured to detect waste material. However, Davoud suggests using a motion sensor or a detection of waste sensor. Turning now to Halloran. Halloran shows using a proximity sensor to detect a user (¶ [0089]), similar to using a motion sensor to detect a user and Halloran shows using a separate and independent sensor to detect waste (¶ [0128]} which activates a command in the controller for controlling a valve (¶ 0129]).
Because Davoud suggests providing a motion sensor and alternately providing a detection of waste sensor and because Halloran details having both a user detection sensor and a waste detection sensor that operate independently to actuate a command in the controller it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the waste sensor in addition to the motion sensor, the waste sensor operating independently from the motion sensor for the purpose of providing an addition indicia for use as detailed by Davoud and for providing information on whether the bowl is dirty and needs cleaning as shown by Halloran.
Regarding Claim 4 Davoud shows the exhaust system of claim 3, wherein the additional system is configured to be mounted, in use, to the exterior of the toilet bowl (sensor 103 is exterior to the bowl and on the rim).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davoud et al. (US 11,828,054) in view of Moore (US Pub. 2011/0047686) in view of Halloran et al. (US Pub. 2024/0254750) in further view of Lonicek (US Pub. 2022/0403640).
Regarding Claim 5 Davoud shows the exhaust system of claim 4, but fails to show wherein the additional sensor is a capacitive sensor. However, Halloran (¶ [0089]) and Lonicek shows using a capacitive sensor in a toilet system (¶ [0038, 0185]). 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 Davoud to include capacitive sensors as shown by Halloran and Lonicek in the plethora of sensors usable for the purpose of using another known type of sensor.
Regarding Claim 7 Davoud as combined shows the exhaust system of claim 3, wherein the capacitive sensor is arranged to be provided at a drain region of the toilet bowl (S1, S2, S4; are all near the drain region of the bowl and may be capacitive sensors; ¶ [0038, 0080, 0185]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shahar et al. (US 2022/03225514) shows the general state of the art; Pollack et al. (US Pub. 2010/0199413) shows the general state of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sim fails to show the ventilator positioned directly within the exhaust pipe between the first and the second end such that air is drawn from the toilet bowl passes through the ventilator before exiting the second end. However, the Office respectfully disagrees. The exhaust pipe of Sim has been defined as starting at or near 34 (first end) and ending at or near (33; Fig. 1; second end; see details above in body of this action), therefore 31 and 54 are considered a part of the “the exhaust pipe”. The ventilator (36) is positioned directly within the exhaust pipe, between the first and second end such that air from the bowl passes through the ventilator before exiting the second end (Fig. 4). The arrows within (31) and (33) show the flow of air (Fig. 4) Therefore Sim continues to meet the claim language in full and as such the 102 rejection has been maintained.
As combined the rejection of Davoud in view of Moore similarly shows the ventilator directly within the exhaust pipe , between the first and second end such that air passes from the bowl through the ventilator before exiting the second end. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, saving space is knowledge that is generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not impermissible hindsight.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Davoud and Moore would alter Davoud the fundamental principle of operation of the Davoud system, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
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 9/9/2026
Prosecution Insights