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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ratio of the cross-sectional area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Two ratios are previously recited. It is unclear which ratio this is referencing. Furthermore, the claim lacks definite and clear language. What does it mean to have the ratio reversed? Recommend using better language to more clearly describe the intended feature as the Examiner cannot ascertain the meaning in the current state. Is the claim suggesting that the ratio at the first height and second height as required by claim 1 are the opposite, meaning whatever value at the first height in claim 1 is now the value at the second height in claim 7? If so, this also raises an issue of scope and dependency 112(d) since all the features of the parent claim are no longer required. Clarification 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,325,258 (hereinafter Asada).
Regarding claim 1, Asada discloses a flush water tank device (20) that is attached to a flush toilet main body for use to supply flush water, comprising: a flush water tank main body including a first tank part (22) and a second tank part (24) that store flush water supplied to the flush toilet main body, a rim spouting switch mechanism (12) that switches discharge and stop of flush water in the first tank part so that the flush water in the first tank part is spouted from a rim spout port (16) of the flush toilet main body, and a jet spouting discharge valve (14) that switches discharge and stop of flush water in the second tank part so that the flush water in the second tank part is spouted from a jet spout port (18) of the flush toilet main body, wherein the first tank part and the second tank part are configured to have different cross- sectional areas depending on a height (fig. 5). Asada fails to explicitly recite a ratio of the cross-sectional area of the first tank part to the cross-sectional area of the second tank part at a first height is different from a ratio of the cross-sectional area at a second height that is lower than the first height. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Asada to select a ratio of the cross-sectional area of the first tank part to the cross-sectional area of the second tank part at a first height to be different from a ratio of the cross-sectional area at a second height that is lower than the first height as a matter of engineering design considerations. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed relative cross-sectional ratios, and it appears the prior art would work appropriately if made within the ratios.
Regarding claim 2, Asada shows the flush water tank device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly show wherein the second tank part is configured to have a cross-sectional area that is equal to or more than the cross-sectional area of the first tank part at the first height. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (discussing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Asada to select a the second tank part is configured to have a cross-sectional area that is equal to or more than the cross-sectional area of the first tank part at the first height as a matter of engineering design considerations. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed relative cross-sections, and it appears the prior art would work appropriately if made within the ratios.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Asada shows the flushwater tank device according to claim1, wherein the first tank part and the second tank part are configured so that the ratio of the cross-sectional area is reversed at the first height and the second height because a user could designate different positions for the first height and second height if so desired.
Regarding claim 8, Asada shows a flush toilet apparatus (20) that is flushed with flushwater stored in a flushwater tank (22, 24), comprising: a flush toilet main body including a bowl (2), a rim spout port (16a, 16b), and a jet spout port (6), and the flush water tank device according to claim 1 (see paragraph above regarding claim 1), which supplies flush water to the rim spout port and the jet spout port of the flush toilet main body (fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Regarding claim 3, Asada shows the flush water tank device according to claim 2, wherein the first tank part (22) includes a stepped portion provided at a height between the first height and the second height, and the first tank part is configured to have a reduced cross-sectional area below the stepped portion, while the second tank part is configured to have an enlarged cross- sectional area below the stepped portion. It would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reverse the configuration due to the connections between the first and second tank parts and the jet and rim spout parts.
Regarding claim 4, Asada shows wherein an inner tank (22) is disposed in the flush water tank main body, and the first tank part is formed inside the inner tank, and the second tank part (24) is formed inside the flush water tank main body and outside the inner tank. It would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to reverse the configuration due to the connections between the first and second tank parts and the jet and rim spout parts.
Claims 5-6 are similarly objected to as they depend from the claims with allowable subject matter and thus inherit the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 8,196,231 is directed to the state of the art of toilet tanks having more than one tank compartment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights