DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to application number 19/056,620 - WATER CLOSET CARRIER, filed on 2/18/25. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, 2, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christain (US 3,251,073).
Regarding Claim 1 Christain shows a carrier plate (21) for supporting a wall-mounted water closet (Fig. 1), the carrier plate comprising: a face plate (23) having a top end (at 26, at 27), a bottom end (at 24, at 25) opposite the top end (top and bottom as shown on the page Fig. 1), a front face (23), and a rear face opposite the front face (not seen in Fig. 1; opposite 23), wherein the face plate defines a channel (at 15) extending between the front face and the rear face configured to receive a fluid coupling member (53) therein;
a bracket (26, 27) extending from the rear face (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) of the face plate proximate the top end to define a bracket length (Fig. 1); and
a foot (24, 25) extending from the rear face of the face plate (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) proximate the bottom end to define a foot length (Fig. 1, 3), wherein the foot defines an anchor aperture therethrough (not seen in 24 or 25, but apertures can be seen in 26 and 27, and the angle plates are similar; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) , and wherein the anchor aperture is offset from any portion of the bracket in at least one of a lateral direction and a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 1, wherein the foot is one of a plurality of feet (24, 25) extending from the rear face of the face plate proximate the bottom end (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32), wherein each foot of the plurality of feet define an anchor aperture (not seen in 24 or 25, but apertures can be seen in 26 and 27, and the angle plates are similar; note, col. 2, lines 20-32), wherein each anchor aperture is offset from any portion of the bracket in at least one of the lateral direction and the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5 Christain shows a carrier plate (21) for supporting a wall-mounted water closet (Fig. 1), the carrier plate comprising: a face plate (23) having a top end (at 26, at 27), a bottom end (at 24, at 25) opposite the top end (top and bottom as shown on the page Fig. 1), a front face (23), and a rear face opposite the front face (not seen in Fig. 1; opposite 23), and a first side edge and a second side edge each extending between the bottom end and the top end (edges left and right on the page; Fig. 1), the second side edge opposite the first side edge;
a channel (at 15) extending through the face plate between the front face and the rear face, the channel configured to couple to a fluid coupling member (53);
a bracket (26, 27) extending from the rear face (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) of the face plate proximate the top end to define a bracket length (Fig. 1); and
a foot (24, 25) extending from the rear face of the face plate (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) proximate the bottom end to define a foot length (Fig. 1, 3), the anchor aperture spaced an anchor length from the front face of the face plate (not seen in 24 or 25, but apertures can be seen in 26 and 27, and the angle plates are similar; note, col. 2, lines 20-32), and wherein the anchor aperture is offset from any portion of the bracket in at least one of a lateral direction and a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1), and wherein the anchor aperture is offset from any portion of the bracket in at least one of a lateral direction and a longitudinal direction.
Regarding Claim 6 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 5, wherein the foot is a first foot and the anchor aperture is a first anchor aperture (not seen in 24 or 25, but apertures can be seen in 26 and 27, and the angle plates are similar; note, col. 2, lines 20-32), wherein the foot is proximate the first side edge (proximate as the corner intersects), wherein the face plate includes a second foot extending from the rear face of the face plate proximate the bottom end (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) and proximate the second side edge (proximate as the corner intersects), wherein the second foot defines a second anchor aperture therethrough (not seen in 24 or 25, but apertures can be seen in 26 and 27, and the angle plates are similar; note, col. 2, lines 20-32).
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) 7-9, 12-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christain (US 3,251,073).
Regarding Claim 7 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 6, wherein the first anchor aperture and the second anchor aperture are spaced an anchor width apart (Figs. 1 & 3), but fails to show wherein the anchor length is 20% to 30% the anchor width. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is not considered critical. Changes is shape that provide predictable results are a matter of design choice and ordinary skill In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, optimizing the ratio of anchor length to anchor width is a matter of obvious design consideration for the carrier plate to be structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets that may have various shapes sizes and weights. Christain shows a carrier plate structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets and therefore optimizing a range of the ratio of the anchor length to the anchor width involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the appropriate range of the ratio of anchor length to anchor width as needed for the structural integrity needed to hold the weight of various wall mounted toilets.
Regarding Claim 8 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 7, but fails to show wherein the anchor length is approximately 75 to 100 mm. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is not considered critical. Changes is shape that provide predictable results are a matter of design choice and ordinary skill In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, optimizing the of anchor length a matter of obvious design consideration for the carrier plate to be structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets that may have various shapes sizes and weights. Christain shows a carrier plate structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets and therefore optimizing the anchor length involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the appropriate range of the anchor length to as needed for the structural integrity needed to hold the weight of various wall mounted toilets.
Regarding Claim 9 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 5, but fails to show wherein the bracket length is less than the anchor length. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is not considered critical. Changes is shape that provide predictable results are a matter of design choice and ordinary skill In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, optimizing the bracket length in relation to the anchor length is a matter of obvious design consideration for the carrier plate to be structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets that may have various shapes sizes and weights. Christain shows a carrier plate structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets and therefore optimizing the bracket length in relation to the anchor length involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the appropriate range of the the bracket length in relation to the anchor length for the structural integrity needed to hold the weight of various wall mounted toilets.
Regarding Claim 12 Christain shows a carrier plate (21) for supporting a wall-mounted water closet (Fig. 1), the carrier plate comprising: a face plate (23) having a top end (at 26, at 27), a bottom end (at 24, at 25) opposite the top end (top and bottom as shown on the page Fig. 1), a front face (23), and a rear face opposite the front face (not seen in Fig. 1; opposite 23), and a first side edge and a second side edge each extending between the bottom end and the top end (edges left and right on the page; Fig. 1), the second side edge opposite the first side edge;
a channel (at 15) extending through the face plate between the front face and the rear face, the channel configured to couple to a fluid coupling member (53);
a first foot (24) extending from the rear face of the face plate (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) proximate the bottom end and the first side edge (proximate as the corner intersects), wherein the first foot defines a first anchor aperture therethrough (not seen in 24 or 25, but apertures can be seen in 26 and 27, and the angle plates are similar; note, col. 2, lines 20-32), the first anchor aperture spaced a first anchor length (not seen in 24 or 25, but apertures can be seen in 26 and 27, and the angle plates are similar; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) from the front face of the face plate; and
a second foot (25) extending from the rear face of the face plate (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) proximate the bottom end and the second side edge (proximate as the corner intersects), wherein the second foot defines a second anchor aperture therethrough (not seen in 24 or 25, but apertures can be seen in 26 and 27, and the angle plates are similar; note, col. 2, lines 20-32), the second anchor aperture spaced a second anchor length (not seen in 24 or 25, but apertures can be seen in 26 and 27, and the angle plates are similar; note, col. 2, lines 20-32) from the front face of the face plate.
But Christain fails to show wherein the first anchor length is greater than 75 mm and wherein the second anchor length is greater than 75 mm. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is not considered critical. Changes is shape that provide predictable results are a matter of design choice and ordinary skill In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, optimizing the of anchor length a matter of obvious design consideration for the carrier plate to be structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets that may have various shapes sizes and weights. Christain shows a carrier plate structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets and therefore optimizing the anchor length involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the appropriate range of the anchor length to as needed for the structural integrity needed to hold the weight of various wall mounted toilets.
Regarding Claim 13 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 12, wherein the first anchor aperture is spaced apart from the second anchor aperture by an anchor width, but fails to show wherein the anchor width is approximately three to five times the first anchor length. However, this is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is not considered critical. Changes is shape that provide predictable results are a matter of design choice and ordinary skill In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, optimizing the ratio of anchor length to anchor width is a matter of obvious design consideration for the carrier plate to be structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets that may have various shapes sizes and weights. Christain shows a carrier plate structurally capable of the weight and forces of wall hung toilets and therefore optimizing a range of the ratio of the anchor length to the anchor width involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); see also MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the appropriate range of the ratio of anchor length to anchor width as needed for the structural integrity needed to hold the weight of various wall mounted toilets.
Regarding Claim 14 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 12 further comprising a bracket (26, 27) extending from the rear face of the face plate proximate the top end (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32), a distal end of the bracket spaced a bracket length from the front face of the face plate (portion 29 of each bracket extends from the rear of the face plate; note, col. 2, lines 20-32).
Regarding Claim 15 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 14, wherein the first anchor aperture and the second anchor aperture are each laterally offset from any portion of the bracket (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 14, but fails to show wherein the face plate, the bracket, the first foot, and the second foot are all formed from a single piece of stock material. However, making that which is discreet integral is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill with predictable results and motivated by easing manufacturing in one step rather than several. In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), (MPEP § 2144.04 V (B)).
Regarding Claim 17 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 14, wherein a portion of the bracket may be positioned proximate the first side edge at the top end of the face plate, wherein the portion of the bracket is laterally offset from the first foot (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20 Christain shows the carrier plate of claim 12, wherein the channel is configured to couple to the fluid coupling member (53) by receiving the fluid coupling member therein.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,258,745. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar in scope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schaetzke et al. (US 9,464,426) shows a similar carrier plate; Flegel (US 3,435,467) shows a similar carrier plate; Lechner et al. (US Pub. 2023/0265874) shows a carrier plate with a jig.
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 Monday thru Thursday, 9:30 AM to 6PM EST.
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 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.
/CHRISTINE J SKUBINNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754 6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights