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 § 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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2022/0220717 A1 (hereinafter Kappus).
Regarding claim 1, Kappus discloses a flush toilet apparatus (680, 800; fig. 6A-8B) that performs flushing by using flush water stored in a flush water tank (690), comprising:
a flush toilet body (800) including a bowl portion (800), a rim spout port (803R) provided in an upper part of the bowl portion (fig. 8A), a drain trap pipe (806) extending from a lower part of the bowl portion (fig. 8B), and a jet spout port (803J) provided so as to face an inlet (807) of the drain trap pipe (fig. 8A);
a flush water tank body (690) that stores flush water for flushing the bowl portion of the flush toilet body;
a rim spouting/stopping switch mechanism (600R) that spouts or stops flush water stored in the flush water tank body from the rim spout port via a rim water channel (801R) provided in the flush toilet body (fig. 8A); and
a jet spouting/stopping switch mechanism (600J) that spouts or stops flush water stored in the flush water tank body from the jet spout port via a jet water channel (801J) provided in the flush toilet body (fig. 8A),
wherein the rim spouting/stopping switch mechanism and the jet spouting/stopping switch mechanism execute a flushing sequence including a first step of starting spouting of flush water from the rim spout port (“lifting of the rim flush valve flapper cover is initiated prior to lifting of the jet flush valve flapper cover “ par. 98), a second step of starting spouting of flush water from the jet spout port after the first step in a state in which spouting of flush water from the rim spout port is continued and activating a siphon action in the drain trap pipe )(“upon initiation of a flush cycle, opening of the rim flush valve is started prior to opening the jet flush valve;” par. 98), and a third step of continuing spouting of flush water from the rim spout port after the second step while stopping spouting of flush water from the jet spout port (“closing the jet channel flush valve before the level of water in the tank falls to the level of the opening of the flush valve” par. 106).
Regarding claim 2, Kappus teaches the second step is executed after the first step (par. 98). As the first step releases flush water into the bowl, the natural result is standing water in the bowl portion rising due to the introduction of water into the bowl during the first step (par. 6, 98).
Regarding claim 3, Kappus teaches flush water in the drain trap pipe starts to overflow (par. 6, 8, 11), and the system is configured to align with the second step being executed after the flush water in the drain trap has started overflowing as the system contemplates staggering the rim flush step which fills the sump and the jet spout step (par. 99, 100).
Regarding claim 4, Kappus teaches the system is configured such that wherein the first step, the second step, the third step differ from each other in a length of execution time (par. 99, 100 set forth different timing options which allows a user to configure the system as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Kappus teaches the system is configured such that an execution time of the third step is longer than execution time of each of the first step and an execution time of the second step (par. 99, 100 set forth different timing options which allows a user to configure the system as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Kappus teaches the system is configured such that the execution time of the first step is longer than the execution time of the second step (par. 99, 100 set forth different timing options which allows a user to configure the system as claimed).
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) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappus in view of US Patent 9,677,260 (hereinafter Miyake).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Kappus teaches configuring the system to achieve desired flow rates (par. 94) but fails to explicitly show wherein the first step, the second step, and the third step differ from each other in an instantaneous flow rate of flush water spouted from the rim spout port, and wherein an instantaneous flow rate of flush water spouted from the rim spout port in the third step is lower than an instantaneous flow rate of flush water spouted from the rim spout port in each of the first step and the second step. Attention is turned to Miyake in the same field of endeavor of jet and rim flushing toilets which teaches an instantaneous flow rate in a third step (Q3 = 6L/min) is lower than an instantaneous flow of flush water spouted from a rim spout port in a first step (Q1=10L/min) and a second step (Q2=85L/min) (col. 12, ln. 60-col. 13, ln. 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the system of Kappus as required by claims 7 and 8 to achieve desired flow rates for optimal flushing as evidenced by the teachings of Miyake mentioned above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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. Claims 10-15 are similarly objected to as they depend from the claim containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 11,624,178 is directed to the state of the art of flush toilets.
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